Posted by BigG. on March 2, 2009 at 8:51am in Veganism
As some of you may or may not know Canada has a brutal policy on animal issues and especially the seal hunt. Something which I am ashamed that our country has participated still in the year 2009.This industry is no longer needed yet a certain part of the country still hangs onto these brutual traditions.Many brave souls have stood up for our friends.The imho are the true warriours of our time.What is exciting is that people are starting to make changes and the changes like anything is when people start saying thanks but no thanks.Here is some recent news about what is going on.Here is a email I received today.Hi there,Great news from the EU today…The Internal Markets and ConsumerProtection committee of the European Parliament has voted in favour ofa strong ban on trade in seal products. It is IMCO’s Opinion that willbe put forward to the full plenary weeks from now.While we still have a long way to go before the plenary vote, this is alandmark victory that clearly establishes the will of the EuropeanParliament to ban seal product trade.A huge thank you to the entire team at HSI and HSUS who have made thispossible. I cannot stress this enough – this victory was due to the hardwork of our organization and could not have occurred without us.It is an amazing thing to be here on Canada’s east coast, bearingwitness to the births of the amazing harp seals, knowing we have justmoved one major step closer to ending this slaughter for good.Rebecca
Views: 0
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from several posts on the blogA Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience'sExpert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
As 2014 begins, there is encouraging news to report on efforts to protect seals.
Because of Humane Society International (HSI)'s work to close markets for seal products, prices for seal fur in Canada have declined dramatically. As a result, in 2013 Canadian hunters fell shy of their allowable quota of seals by more than 300,000 individuals.
Also in 2013, following a multi-year campaign in collaboration with HSI's Taiwanese partner, EAST, Taiwan became the first Asian nation to ban trade in marine mammal products — including seal products.
And, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel upheld the European Union's right to prohibit the trade in seal products for animal-welfare reasons, a ban secured by HSI and our partners in 2009. This sets a crucial precedent not only for other countries considering seal-product trade bans, but also for animal welfare in general as it pertains to global trade: This is the first time the WTO has ruled that animal welfare is an issue of public moral concern and is a legitimate reason to restrict trade.
HSI provided key evidence in support of the EU ban, submitted an amicus (friend of the court) brief to the WTO panel, and our video evidence of cruelty in recent seal slaughters was broadcast during the WTO hearings.
The European Court of Justice, the highest court in Europe, also rejected an appeal by commercial sealing representatives of an earlier ruling by the European General Court. That decision left intact the right of the EU to ban seal-product trade — a move that aligns with the views of the 86 percent of Canadians who oppose the commercial seal hunt.
All of these victories represent a seismic shift on the international legal front for animals. Unknown to most Americans, the WTO in Geneva sets the rules-of-the-road on trade matters and regularly renders far-reaching decisions that affect the ability of nations to pass laws to protect animals, the environment and public health — long treating such value-based standards as barriers to trade. This little-understood international body has the power to judge which domestic laws protecting animals are consistent with free-trade agreements, and which laws cannot stand.
It's a staggering amount of power for one body to wield over the fate of millions of animals, and that's why HSI and The HSUS have developed a premier team of political and legal experts who work tirelessly to push the WTO toward humane decisions.
The above gray seal mother is aggressively protecting her pup. Credit: Durham University
The EU ban on the sale of seal products, instituted in 2009, had been challenged at the WTO by Canada and Norway as violating international trade rules. In essence, the pro-sealing countries argued that animal cruelty is not a sufficient reason to ban the trade in seal products. The WTO panel largely rejected their claims of discriminatory treatment, finding fault merely with certain exceptions to the ban.
The WTO specifically found that the EU ban is consistent with WTO rules because it fulfills the legitimate objective of addressing EU's citizens' moral concerns with regard to animal welfare and that no alternative measure would suffice. The key to the panel's decision was its findings that, "animal welfare is an issue of ethical or moral nature in the European Union" and that, "animal welfare is a matter of ethical responsibility for human beings in general.
While the truth of these statements may seem obvious, it is hard to overstate the importance of their acceptance on a global legal stage. Seen more narrowly, this is a great win for seals and a huge setback for the government of Canada in its efforts to turn back the clock on sales of seal pelts to the EU.
This ruling will reassure any country considering an animal-welfare measure that it has much less to fear from a WTO challenge than it did before. It also improves the outlook for hundreds of state and federal animal-protection laws that had an uncertain future because of the consequences of unfettered trade.
This win for animals comes on the heels of much more troubling WTO ruling last year, holding that the U.S. "dolphin-safe" labeling law provides "less favorable treatment" to Mexican tuna products in violation of international trade rules. In the wake of that ruling, the administration of U.S. president Barack Obama had a choice to make: It could relax the law's requirements with respect to setting tuna nets on dolphins, which would be sure to please the Mexican tuna fisheries stubbornly clinging to this antiquated practice, or it could expand the scope of the dolphin-safe law in order to comply with the WTO report, while leaving intact a strong prohibition on setting nets on dolphins.
If you're a topical expert — researcher, business leader, author or innovator — and would like to contribute an op-ed piece, email us here.
Unfortunately, Mexico recently requested another hearing at the WTO, claiming that the dolphin-safe law still runs afoul of WTO principles. Much like Canada, Mexico continues to try to profit from cruel practices that are out-of-touch with modern sensibility and push the products of this cruelty into markets that don't want them.
In the meantime, HSUS lawyers and policy experts were hard at work at the recent WTO Ministerial Conference, and will be into the future, making sure free-trade principles do not run roughshod over the patchwork of domestic humane regulations, which are the only thing standing between millions of animals and a whole panoply of unspeakable cruelty and abuse in the more than 150 member countries that make up the WTO.
However, despite all of these accomplishments, I remain dismayed by the public comments made recently by celebrity chef and television personality Anthony Bourdain, who criticized our Canadian seafood boycott and said, "I'm all for protecting seals, but a total ban dooms the indigenous people above [the] Arctic Circle to death or relocation." He called out dozens of chefs who've joined HSUS's Protect Seals campaign, and urged them to withdraw their support.
Bourdain could not be more wrong. He's conflated the much smaller-scale subsistence hunting of seals in other parts of Canada, which is conducted by Inuit people, with the immense commercial slaughter of seals for their fur pelts in Atlantic Canada, which is conducted almost entirely by off-season fishermen who kill the seals, take their pelts, and then dump their carcasses in the ocean or leave them to rot. They attempt to sell the pelts to dealers who then peddle them on the international market. Few of these seal products are used locally in the maritime provinces of Canada where the hunt occurs.
Canada's commercial seal hunt has claimed the lives of more than 2 million seals since 2002 alone, making it the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. The government of Canada's kill reports confirm 98 percent of the seals killed are younger than 3-months-old. Every year, The HSUS documents the slaughter and comes back with video evidence of seals thrashing in pain due to inaccurate bullet wounds — often disappearing under the sea ice to die slowly without ever being recovered — and fishermen impaling still-conscious seal pups with boat hooks and dragging them on board their vessels to be clubbed and skinned.
This big-eyed baby is a spotted seal pup in Alaska. Credit: Captain Budd Christman, NOAA Corps
No amount of income derived from the hunt could justify this mass killing and cruelty. But what's remarkable is that the whole enterprise is a financial boondoggle, enabled almost entirely and unwittingly by Canadian taxpayers.
During the last couple of years, the landed value of the pelts obtained by the hunters is just north of $1 million a year. The government provides subsidies — including financing private companies to buy up pelts — that amount to millions. So the entire enterprise is a money-loser for Canada.
The Canadian government can turn into a savior, not an enabler, by conducting a buy-out of sealing licenses — a measure that The HSUS fully endorses. This simple plan would see the federal government end commercial sealing, compensate fishermen for any lost income, and invest in sustainable economic alternatives.
The fact is, there aren't many people in the world who want those seal pelts. The European Union bans their sale, and so do the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan; the United States; Mexico; and Taiwan. The markets for seal pelts have been shrinking and closing because good people throughout the world no longer want to be associated with the cruelty of the seal hunts.
That goes for consumers, and for chefs. In fact, an army of chefs, along with 800,000 individuals and 6,500 businesses, are part of the Protect Seals boycott of Canadian seafood. The HSUS is grateful to every one of them for their leadership and their decency, and we'll continue with our efforts to expose the cruelty of the hunt, to close markets for these seal pelts, and to urge consumers to boycott Canadian seafood, until the fishing industry does the right thing and calls for the end to the commercial seal slaughter.
Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "One Chimpanzee's Life is a Testament to Humanity" This article was adapted from several posts that first appeared on the HSUS blogA Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.
the above was put together by a variety of organizations (eg ericka's CATCA) and individuals (eg tf's jacob) and it asks canadian supermarkets not sell seal corpse pieces (another desparate ploy by the canadian government to delay the destruction of the seal slaughter industry).
simply put: the savages will have to change their ways.
in friendship,
prad
====
WTO seal ban will have ripple effect on other animal industries: Walkom
If Canadian farmers want to export more pork and beef to Europe, they'll have to treat their livestock better.
Text size:
Increase
Decrease
Reset
Share via Email
Print
Report an Error
Save to Mystar
JONATHAN HAYWARD / THE CANADIAN PRESS file photo
For Canadian commercial sealers, the WTO decision merely confirms a fact that should have been obvious: To all intents and purposes, their industry is dead, writes Thomas Walkom.
By:Thomas WalkomNational Affairs,Published on Wed Nov 27 2013
The critics are right. The decision by a World Trade Organization panel to uphold a European Union ban on Canadian seal products does have profound implications for other animal industries.
And that’s not such a bad thing.
In effect, the WTO panel upheld the ban on moral grounds. It agreed that the member nations of the European Union find the killing and skinning methods used by Canadian sealers morally reprehensible.
The 28-member EU does make an exception for seals killed in aboriginal subsistence hunts, as well as those culled for reasons of marine management — although the WTO panel said the rules here are applied inconsistently.
More Video
Video: Tony Clement says proposed federal texting ban is nonsense
Video: London Slaves Held in Horrific Conditions, Police Say
For Canadian commercial sealers, the decision merely confirms a fact that should have been obvious: To all intents and purposes, their industry is dead.
The United States has banned the importation of seal products since 1972. Russia, which at one point had been the number one market for seal pelts, instituted its own ban two years ago. Taiwan and Mexico also have bans.
The Canadian industry, centred in Newfoundland and Labrador, has withered accordingly. Fewer than 850 people were employed in the hunt this year.
In a world dominated by the ideology of unrestricted trade, this week’s decision — based as it is on morality — stands out.
Stretching back to the era of the slave trade, nations have long guarded the right to limit commerce on moral grounds. But as U.S. law professor Steve Charnovitz wrote 15 years ago, the modern implications of this so-called moral exception are only gradually coming into focus.
The WTO’s morals clause dates back to 1946 and was insisted upon by the United States. Codified in Article XX of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it is remarkably broad.
It allows signatories to the global pact to pass trade restriction laws necessary for the “protection of public morals” as well as those required to “protect human, animal or plant life or health.”
The only limitations on such bans are that they must be applied equally to all countries and that they cannot act as “disguised restriction(s) on international trade”.
Israel, for instance, bans the importation of non-kosher meat. Many countries ban imports of obscene photographs. Such bans are not usually challenged.
But some are. When the U.S., on moral grounds, banned the import of tuna netted in a manner that also killed dolphins, Mexico took it to an international trade dispute panel and, at the first level, won.
Ottawa has said it will appeal the seal decision to a WTO appellate panel. Who knows? It might succeed.
But if it does not, the repercussions will be far-reaching.
Europeans in particular are focusing on animal welfare. Methods of livestock farming that are common in Canada — such as confining pigs and chickens to small pens or keeping calves in tiny crates — are under increasing attack in EU countries.
Since January, the practice of keeping pregnant sows in gestation crates has been banned in the EU. A similar ban, on so-called barren battery chicken cages, came into effect last year.
An EU ban on veal crates, which prevent calves from even turning around during their short lives, took force six years ago.
“The poultry, pork and beef industry — they’re next,” Terry Audla, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and a critic of the WTO decision, told Canadian Press this week. He’s almost certainly right.
The idea of restricting international trade in animals for moral reasons is not new. The U.S. already bans the importation of meat from animals killed inhumanely. But the definition of inhumane is changing.
In Canada, governments still deem it acceptable to raise livestock under conditions that the Europeans deem barbaric. Yet these same governments also hope to use the recently-signed Canada-EU trade treaty to export great quantities of pork and beef to Europe.
The WTO sealing decision underlines the contradiction here. Something will have to give.
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.
reveals the sort of ethical paucity that seems to be inherent in seal killers (and animal abusers in general). note this comment by Gil Theriault, the seals and sealing network co-ordinator for the Fur Institute of Canada who said said the ban imposed by European parliamentarians was more about politics than about a sound rational argument:
"We have a good chance to win it, because normally a panel of judges wouldn't be influenced by morals,"
however, it seems that the eu court is not only interested in the morals of the barbaric seal slaughter, they provide sound rational arguments too:
"The General Court confirms that the objective of the basic regulation, which is the improvement of the conditions of functioning of the internal market, taking into account the protection of animal welfare, cannot be satisfactorily achieved by action undertaken only in the member states and requires action at EU level,"
and
"Moreover, the applicants, who are of very different origins and, for the most part, do not belong to the Inuit community, have not demonstrated the effects on their right to property in relation to the different categories into which they fall,"
of course canada will appeal and waste even more tax payer money.
in friendship,
prad
====
THE SEALS WIN AT THE WTO
(November, 25, 2013) The WTO ruled today on the European Union's (EU) ban on imports of seal products from commercial sealing operations. This affects the Canadian seal 'hunt', in which over 339,000 harp seal pups were killed since the import ban was passed in 2009, and the massacre of Cape fur seals (80,000 nursing pups and 6,000 bulls each year) in Namibia.
Canada, Namibia, and Norway challenged this EU ban, alleging that it was an unfair barrier to free trade. The WTO held hearings in the spring of 2013, in which representatives from these countries claimed that the killing is humane and well-regulated.
The European Union responded, with help from NGO's that have monitored the Canadian seal 'hunt', such as IFAW and HSI, providing evidence that the killing is inhumane. The U.S. also testified at the hearings in favor of maintaining the import ban. Read the testimony of third party countries including Mexico, the U.S., and Japan here.
Today, the WTO issued its ruling. "The panel determined that the EU Seal Regime is a technical regulation and that the EU Seal Regime does not violate Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement because it fulfils the objective of addressing EU public moral concerns on seal welfare to a certain extent, and no alternative measure was demonstrated to make an equivalent or greater contribution to the fulfilment of the objective."
The WTO did raise objections to the exemptions given to certain Inuit (indigenous) communities, a small number of whom are engaged in international trade of seal products. "The panel concluded that the IC [indigenous communities] exception under the EU Seal Regime violates Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because an advantage granted by the European Union to seal products originating in Greenland (specifically, its Inuit population) is not accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like products originating in Norway."
The panel also objected to the exemption in the EU rule for seal products that are obtained from hunts conducted for purposes of 'marine resource management' (MRM). "With respect to the MRM exception, the panel found that it violates Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because it accords imported seal products treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic seal products. The panel also found that the IC exception and the MRM exception are not justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 (“necessary to protect public morals”) because they fail to meet the requirements under the chapeau of Article XX (“not applied in a manner that would constitute arbitrary or unjustified discrimination where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade”)."
Harpseals.org believes that exemptions and exceptions to the EU ban on seal product imports are unnecessary and should be removed from the EU regulations. This will resolve the issues raised by the WTO.
Inuit hunting of seals should be permitted only insofar as it is necessary for the survival of the communities that still engage in subsistence hunting. Trade in seal products by Inuit should come under the EU ban, without exceptions. For more on our take on Inuit sealing read our FAQ's.
Sealing should not be allowed as part of resource management measures. Seals are an important part of the marine ecosystem. They are not the cause of the depletion of fish stocks. The problems that fishermen are seeing around the globe arise from over-fishing; destructive, industrial fishing practices like bottom trawling, long lining, and purse seining; man-made pollution of the oceans with plastic waste, radioactive waste (including the large amount of radioactive wastewater dumped into the Pacific ocean by Japan), and chemical waste, which is building up in the bodies of fish and marine mammals; and climate change, which is acidifying the oceans (causing losses of coral reefs and weakening the shells of crustaceans), changing ocean currents, raising the temperature of the oceans, and melting Arctic, sub-Arctic, and Antarctic ice (which is causing polar bears and ice seals to drown in large numbers).
As you may know, Canadian Sen. Mac Harb introduced Bill S-210 to phase out the commercial seal slaughter. Just yesterday, Sen. Harb delivered a compelling speech before the Senate and debate on the bill resumed. He stated, "The government has to sit down with the stakeholders in the industry and talk realistically about an industry-wide buyout." Now that Russia—which had been importing 95 percent of Canadian seal pelts—has joined the U.S., EU, Mexico, and others in banning seal fur imports, there are no markets left.
In a recent Huffington Post blog post, Sen. Harb acknowledged that animal advocacy groups such as PETA and our supporters have played an important role in moving Bill S-210 forward. Now is the time to show support for the bill as the debate continues by taking action here. "Your efforts are making a difference," as Sen. Harb says.
Thank you for everything that you do to help animals!
Kind regards,
Tracy Reiman Executive Vice President People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
You may have heard the wonderful news that just weeks after meeting with PETA, Canadian Sen. Mac Harb introduced a historic bill to phase out Canada's annual slaughter of baby seals. Even though there are no markets for seal fur left now that Russia—which had been importing 95 percent of Canadian seal fur—has joined the U.S. and the European Union in banning seal pelts, the Canadian government continues to prop up this dying industry.
The bill is currently being debated in the Senate, and Sen. Harb is scheduled to speak about it in front of other senators this Thursday, June 14. Now is the time to urge Liberal leader Bob Rae, New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper to support the bill and help resolve the issue. Please take action here.
We are so close to ending the seal slaughter once and for all. Thanks for everything that you do to help animals.
Sincerely,
Dan Mathews Senior Vice President People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
go here and tell the stagnating canadian politicians to get the country out of the rotten swamp!
Replies
from wayne pacelle of hsus:
Seals Gain Global Protections, Despite Anthony Bourdain's Efforts
in friendship,
prad
====
Seals Gain Global Protections, Despite Anthony Bourdain's Efforts (Op-Ed)
Credit: NOAA
Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from several posts on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
As 2014 begins, there is encouraging news to report on efforts to protect seals.
Because of Humane Society International (HSI)'s work to close markets for seal products, prices for seal fur in Canada have declined dramatically. As a result, in 2013 Canadian hunters fell shy of their allowable quota of seals by more than 300,000 individuals.
Also in 2013, following a multi-year campaign in collaboration with HSI's Taiwanese partner, EAST, Taiwan became the first Asian nation to ban trade in marine mammal products — including seal products.
And, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel upheld the European Union's right to prohibit the trade in seal products for animal-welfare reasons, a ban secured by HSI and our partners in 2009. This sets a crucial precedent not only for other countries considering seal-product trade bans, but also for animal welfare in general as it pertains to global trade: This is the first time the WTO has ruled that animal welfare is an issue of public moral concern and is a legitimate reason to restrict trade.
HSI provided key evidence in support of the EU ban, submitted an amicus (friend of the court) brief to the WTO panel, and our video evidence of cruelty in recent seal slaughters was broadcast during the WTO hearings.
The European Court of Justice, the highest court in Europe, also rejected an appeal by commercial sealing representatives of an earlier ruling by the European General Court. That decision left intact the right of the EU to ban seal-product trade — a move that aligns with the views of the 86 percent of Canadians who oppose the commercial seal hunt.
All of these victories represent a seismic shift on the international legal front for animals. Unknown to most Americans, the WTO in Geneva sets the rules-of-the-road on trade matters and regularly renders far-reaching decisions that affect the ability of nations to pass laws to protect animals, the environment and public health — long treating such value-based standards as barriers to trade. This little-understood international body has the power to judge which domestic laws protecting animals are consistent with free-trade agreements, and which laws cannot stand.
It's a staggering amount of power for one body to wield over the fate of millions of animals, and that's why HSI and The HSUS have developed a premier team of political and legal experts who work tirelessly to push the WTO toward humane decisions.
Credit: Durham University
Their recent ruling is its most animal-friendly decision to date.
The EU ban on the sale of seal products, instituted in 2009, had been challenged at the WTO by Canada and Norway as violating international trade rules. In essence, the pro-sealing countries argued that animal cruelty is not a sufficient reason to ban the trade in seal products. The WTO panel largely rejected their claims of discriminatory treatment, finding fault merely with certain exceptions to the ban.
The WTO specifically found that the EU ban is consistent with WTO rules because it fulfills the legitimate objective of addressing EU's citizens' moral concerns with regard to animal welfare and that no alternative measure would suffice. The key to the panel's decision was its findings that, "animal welfare is an issue of ethical or moral nature in the European Union" and that, "animal welfare is a matter of ethical responsibility for human beings in general.
While the truth of these statements may seem obvious, it is hard to overstate the importance of their acceptance on a global legal stage. Seen more narrowly, this is a great win for seals and a huge setback for the government of Canada in its efforts to turn back the clock on sales of seal pelts to the EU.
This ruling will reassure any country considering an animal-welfare measure that it has much less to fear from a WTO challenge than it did before. It also improves the outlook for hundreds of state and federal animal-protection laws that had an uncertain future because of the consequences of unfettered trade.
This win for animals comes on the heels of much more troubling WTO ruling last year, holding that the U.S. "dolphin-safe" labeling law provides "less favorable treatment" to Mexican tuna products in violation of international trade rules. In the wake of that ruling, the administration of U.S. president Barack Obama had a choice to make: It could relax the law's requirements with respect to setting tuna nets on dolphins, which would be sure to please the Mexican tuna fisheries stubbornly clinging to this antiquated practice, or it could expand the scope of the dolphin-safe law in order to comply with the WTO report, while leaving intact a strong prohibition on setting nets on dolphins.
Fortunately, the administration chose the latter, and conservationists rejoiced on behalf of the dolphins.
Unfortunately, Mexico recently requested another hearing at the WTO, claiming that the dolphin-safe law still runs afoul of WTO principles. Much like Canada, Mexico continues to try to profit from cruel practices that are out-of-touch with modern sensibility and push the products of this cruelty into markets that don't want them.
In the meantime, HSUS lawyers and policy experts were hard at work at the recent WTO Ministerial Conference, and will be into the future, making sure free-trade principles do not run roughshod over the patchwork of domestic humane regulations, which are the only thing standing between millions of animals and a whole panoply of unspeakable cruelty and abuse in the more than 150 member countries that make up the WTO.
However, despite all of these accomplishments, I remain dismayed by the public comments made recently by celebrity chef and television personality Anthony Bourdain, who criticized our Canadian seafood boycott and said, "I'm all for protecting seals, but a total ban dooms the indigenous people above [the] Arctic Circle to death or relocation." He called out dozens of chefs who've joined HSUS's Protect Seals campaign, and urged them to withdraw their support.
Bourdain could not be more wrong. He's conflated the much smaller-scale subsistence hunting of seals in other parts of Canada, which is conducted by Inuit people, with the immense commercial slaughter of seals for their fur pelts in Atlantic Canada, which is conducted almost entirely by off-season fishermen who kill the seals, take their pelts, and then dump their carcasses in the ocean or leave them to rot. They attempt to sell the pelts to dealers who then peddle them on the international market. Few of these seal products are used locally in the maritime provinces of Canada where the hunt occurs.
Canada's commercial seal hunt has claimed the lives of more than 2 million seals since 2002 alone, making it the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. The government of Canada's kill reports confirm 98 percent of the seals killed are younger than 3-months-old. Every year, The HSUS documents the slaughter and comes back with video evidence of seals thrashing in pain due to inaccurate bullet wounds — often disappearing under the sea ice to die slowly without ever being recovered — and fishermen impaling still-conscious seal pups with boat hooks and dragging them on board their vessels to be clubbed and skinned.
Credit: Captain Budd Christman, NOAA Corps
No amount of income derived from the hunt could justify this mass killing and cruelty. But what's remarkable is that the whole enterprise is a financial boondoggle, enabled almost entirely and unwittingly by Canadian taxpayers.
During the last couple of years, the landed value of the pelts obtained by the hunters is just north of $1 million a year. The government provides subsidies — including financing private companies to buy up pelts — that amount to millions. So the entire enterprise is a money-loser for Canada.
The Canadian government can turn into a savior, not an enabler, by conducting a buy-out of sealing licenses — a measure that The HSUS fully endorses. This simple plan would see the federal government end commercial sealing, compensate fishermen for any lost income, and invest in sustainable economic alternatives.
The fact is, there aren't many people in the world who want those seal pelts. The European Union bans their sale, and so do the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan; the United States; Mexico; and Taiwan. The markets for seal pelts have been shrinking and closing because good people throughout the world no longer want to be associated with the cruelty of the seal hunts.
That goes for consumers, and for chefs. In fact, an army of chefs, along with 800,000 individuals and 6,500 businesses, are part of the Protect Seals boycott of Canadian seafood. The HSUS is grateful to every one of them for their leadership and their decency, and we'll continue with our efforts to expose the cruelty of the hunt, to close markets for these seal pelts, and to urge consumers to boycott Canadian seafood, until the fishing industry does the right thing and calls for the end to the commercial seal slaughter.
Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "One Chimpanzee's Life is a Testament to Humanity" This article was adapted from several posts that first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.
pradalert: sign anti-seal slaughter petition to supermarkets
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Canadian_Supermarkets_DO_NOT_S...
the above was put together by a variety of organizations (eg ericka's CATCA) and individuals (eg tf's jacob) and it asks canadian supermarkets not sell seal corpse pieces (another desparate ploy by the canadian government to delay the destruction of the seal slaughter industry).
in friendship,
prad
this is from sarah (www.cfwar.org)
WTO seal ban will have ripple effect on other animal industries: Wa...
simply put: the savages will have to change their ways.
in friendship,
prad
====
WTO seal ban will have ripple effect on other animal industries: Walkom
If Canadian farmers want to export more pork and beef to Europe, they'll have to treat their livestock better.
Text size:
Increase
Decrease
Reset
Share via Email
Print
JONATHAN HAYWARD / THE CANADIAN PRESS file photo
For Canadian commercial sealers, the WTO decision merely confirms a fact that should have been obvious: To all intents and purposes, their industry is dead, writes Thomas Walkom.
The critics are right. The decision by a World Trade Organization panel to uphold a European Union ban on Canadian seal products does have profound implications for other animal industries.
And that’s not such a bad thing.
In effect, the WTO panel upheld the ban on moral grounds. It agreed that the member nations of the European Union find the killing and skinning methods used by Canadian sealers morally reprehensible.
And it ruled that the most reasonable remedy was to uphold the EU ban on importing Canadian seal products.
The 28-member EU does make an exception for seals killed in aboriginal subsistence hunts, as well as those culled for reasons of marine management — although the WTO panel said the rules here are applied inconsistently.
Video: Tony Clement says proposed federal texting ban is nonsense
Video: London Slaves Held in Horrific Conditions, Police Say
For Canadian commercial sealers, the decision merely confirms a fact that should have been obvious: To all intents and purposes, their industry is dead.
The United States has banned the importation of seal products since 1972. Russia, which at one point had been the number one market for seal pelts, instituted its own ban two years ago. Taiwan and Mexico also have bans.
The Canadian industry, centred in Newfoundland and Labrador, has withered accordingly. Fewer than 850 people were employed in the hunt this year.
In a world dominated by the ideology of unrestricted trade, this week’s decision — based as it is on morality — stands out.
Stretching back to the era of the slave trade, nations have long guarded the right to limit commerce on moral grounds. But as U.S. law professor Steve Charnovitz wrote 15 years ago, the modern implications of this so-called moral exception are only gradually coming into focus.
The WTO’s morals clause dates back to 1946 and was insisted upon by the United States. Codified in Article XX of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it is remarkably broad.
It allows signatories to the global pact to pass trade restriction laws necessary for the “protection of public morals” as well as those required to “protect human, animal or plant life or health.”
The only limitations on such bans are that they must be applied equally to all countries and that they cannot act as “disguised restriction(s) on international trade”.
Israel, for instance, bans the importation of non-kosher meat. Many countries ban imports of obscene photographs. Such bans are not usually challenged.
But some are. When the U.S., on moral grounds, banned the import of tuna netted in a manner that also killed dolphins, Mexico took it to an international trade dispute panel and, at the first level, won.
Ottawa has said it will appeal the seal decision to a WTO appellate panel. Who knows? It might succeed.
But if it does not, the repercussions will be far-reaching.
Europeans in particular are focusing on animal welfare. Methods of livestock farming that are common in Canada — such as confining pigs and chickens to small pens or keeping calves in tiny crates — are under increasing attack in EU countries.
Since January, the practice of keeping pregnant sows in gestation crates has been banned in the EU. A similar ban, on so-called barren battery chicken cages, came into effect last year.
An EU ban on veal crates, which prevent calves from even turning around during their short lives, took force six years ago.
“The poultry, pork and beef industry — they’re next,” Terry Audla, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and a critic of the WTO decision, told Canadian Press this week. He’s almost certainly right.
The idea of restricting international trade in animals for moral reasons is not new. The U.S. already bans the importation of meat from animals killed inhumanely. But the definition of inhumane is changing.
In Canada, governments still deem it acceptable to raise livestock under conditions that the Europeans deem barbaric. Yet these same governments also hope to use the recently-signed Canada-EU trade treaty to export great quantities of pork and beef to Europe.
The WTO sealing decision underlines the contradiction here. Something will have to give.
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.
this story from apr20 proved to be incorrect:
EU ban on trade in seal fur set to be overturned
European court expected to back attempt by pelt traders and sporran makers to reverse 2010 ruling
another story from apr22:
Overturning seal ban won't create markets, insiders say
reveals the sort of ethical paucity that seems to be inherent in seal killers (and animal abusers in general). note this comment by Gil Theriault, the seals and sealing network co-ordinator for the Fur Institute of Canada who said said the ban imposed by European parliamentarians was more about politics than about a sound rational argument:
"We have a good chance to win it, because normally a panel of judges wouldn't be influenced by morals,"
however, it seems that the eu court is not only interested in the morals of the barbaric seal slaughter, they provide sound rational arguments too:
"The General Court confirms that the objective of the basic regulation, which is the improvement of the conditions of functioning of the internal market, taking into account the protection of animal welfare, cannot be satisfactorily achieved by action undertaken only in the member states and requires action at EU level,"
and
"Moreover, the applicants, who are of very different origins and, for the most part, do not belong to the Inuit community, have not demonstrated the effects on their right to property in relation to the different categories into which they fall,"
EU court dismisses Inuit bid to overturn seal product ban
in friendship,
prad
This Canadian Government is beyond pathetic. How does a unethical government have the nerve to talk about ethics. Losers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/seal-product-ba...
You can comment if you like.
--
Peas be with you,
Take Care,
here's more on the ban:
http://www.harpseals.org/resources/news_and_press/2013/seal_actions...
of course canada will appeal and waste even more tax payer money.
in friendship,
prad
====
THE SEALS WIN AT THE WTO
(November, 25, 2013) The WTO ruled today on the European Union's (EU) ban on imports of seal products from commercial sealing operations. This affects the Canadian seal 'hunt', in which over 339,000 harp seal pups were killed since the import ban was passed in 2009, and the massacre of Cape fur seals (80,000 nursing pups and 6,000 bulls each year) in Namibia.
The European Union responded, with help from NGO's that have monitored the Canadian seal 'hunt', such as IFAW and HSI, providing evidence that the killing is inhumane. The U.S. also testified at the hearings in favor of maintaining the import ban. Read the testimony of third party countries including Mexico, the U.S., and Japan here.
Today, the WTO issued its ruling. "The panel determined that the EU Seal Regime is a technical regulation and that the EU Seal Regime does not violate Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement because it fulfils the objective of addressing EU public moral concerns on seal welfare to a certain extent, and no alternative measure was demonstrated to make an equivalent or greater contribution to the fulfilment of the objective."
The WTO did raise objections to the exemptions given to certain Inuit (indigenous) communities, a small number of whom are engaged in international trade of seal products. "The panel concluded that the IC [indigenous communities] exception under the EU Seal Regime violates Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because an advantage granted by the European Union to seal products originating in Greenland (specifically, its Inuit population) is not accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like products originating in Norway."
The panel also objected to the exemption in the EU rule for seal products that are obtained from hunts conducted for purposes of 'marine resource management' (MRM). "With respect to the MRM exception, the panel found that it violates Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because it accords imported seal products treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic seal products. The panel also found that the IC exception and the MRM exception are not justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 (“necessary to protect public morals”) because they fail to meet the requirements under the chapeau of Article XX (“not applied in a manner that would constitute arbitrary or unjustified discrimination where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade”)."
The summary of the WTO ruling can be found here. The full texts of the ruling are here (400R) and here (Appendices: 400RA1).
Harpseals.org believes that exemptions and exceptions to the EU ban on seal product imports are unnecessary and should be removed from the EU regulations. This will resolve the issues raised by the WTO.
Inuit hunting of seals should be permitted only insofar as it is necessary for the survival of the communities that still engage in subsistence hunting. Trade in seal products by Inuit should come under the EU ban, without exceptions. For more on our take on Inuit sealing read our FAQ's.
Sealing should not be allowed as part of resource management measures. Seals are an important part of the marine ecosystem. They are not the cause of the depletion of fish stocks. The problems that fishermen are seeing around the globe arise from over-fishing; destructive, industrial fishing practices like bottom trawling, long lining, and purse seining; man-made pollution of the oceans with plastic waste, radioactive waste (including the large amount of radioactive wastewater dumped into the Pacific ocean by Japan), and chemical waste, which is building up in the bodies of fish and marine mammals; and climate change, which is acidifying the oceans (causing losses of coral reefs and weakening the shells of crustaceans), changing ocean currents, raising the temperature of the oceans, and melting Arctic, sub-Arctic, and Antarctic ice (which is causing polar bears and ice seals to drown in large numbers).
through sarah of www.cfawr.org, an email from Sonja Van Tichelen of www.ifaw.org.
Posted Fri, 03/08/2013
Last week I shared a video overview from the first seal ban hearing at World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva, Switzerland.
The dispute process is very complicated so I invited our trade advisor, Hannes Schloemann to share his perspective and further explain.
Hannes is a trade lawyer based in Geneva who works with WTO rules on a daily basis and follows most trade disputes.
According to his expert opinion the EU has a strong case and can defend the ban on the grounds of public morality.
you can go here to see the ifaw video coverage of the proceedings so far:
VIDEO: Geneva update on Canada’s WTO challenge to the EU seal impor...
in friendship,
prad
from peta:
====
In a recent Huffington Post blog post, Sen. Harb acknowledged that animal advocacy groups such as PETA and our supporters have played an important role in moving Bill S-210 forward. Now is the time to show support for the bill as the debate continues by taking action here. "Your efforts are making a difference," as Sen. Harb says.
Thank you for everything that you do to help animals!
Kind regards,
Tracy Reiman
Executive Vice President
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
====
in friendship,
prad
Thanks Prad,
Signed and shared.
Take Care,
seal slaughter to be debated finally in canada:
The bill is currently being debated in the Senate, and Sen. Harb is scheduled to speak about it in front of other senators this Thursday, June 14. Now is the time to urge Liberal leader Bob Rae, New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper to support the bill and help resolve the issue. Please take action here.
We are so close to ending the seal slaughter once and for all. Thanks for everything that you do to help animals.
Sincerely,
Dan Mathews
Senior Vice President
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
go here and tell the stagnating canadian politicians to get the country out of the rotten swamp!
in friendship,
prad
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 13 Next