 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
The BWC logo has been designed keeping in mind our motto.
The red circle around BWC signifies the fourth element, fire.
The outer circle in green is for the environment as a whole.
|
|
|
Blue-and-Green Ribbon for Animal Rights Activists
|
Blue signifies animal rights. Green the veg idea. |
|
|
Phonetic Alphabet for Animal Rights Activists developed by Beauty Without Cruelty
|
Available as a Bookmark.
| A |
Animal |
H |
Horse |
O |
Ox |
V |
Vulture |
| B |
Bird |
I |
Insect |
P |
Parrot |
W |
Whale |
| C |
Cow |
J |
Jaguar |
Q |
Queen bee |
X |
X-Ray fish |
| D |
Dog |
K |
Kangaroo |
R |
Rabbit |
Y |
Yak |
| E |
Elephant |
L |
Lion |
S |
Sheep |
Z |
Zebra |
| F |
Fox |
M |
Monkey |
T |
Tiger |
|
|
| G |
Goat |
N |
Nightingale |
U |
Unicorn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Animal Rights and Sentience
|
|
The concept of animal rights is based on the fact that animals (all living creatures other than humans) are sentient beings. A sentient being is one who has the faculty of sensation and perception or the ability to feel physically and emotionally. It has been scientifically proved beyond doubt that animals are sentient beings although quite often they are perceived archaically and unjustly as things or moveable property.
BWC believes that the rights of all animals need to be recognised and acknowledged by every one, including government by granting legal status to animals: the right to freedom from unnaturally induced pain, the right to shelter, the right to nourishment, the right to indulge their natural instincts, the right to freedom of movement and most importantly, the right to exist. Animals have intrinsic worth and their value should not be based on their usefulness to humans.
BWC has therefore written to the Government of India seeking appropriate legal status for animals soon, especially after 7 May 2014 when the Supreme Court Bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose while upholding the Central Government Notification that Bulls cannot be used as performing animals, one of their declarations and directions issued stated “Parliament, it is expected, will elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights, as done by many countries around the world, so as to protect their dignity and honour”.
Meanwhile, by amending its animal welfare law, in May 2015 New Zealand recognised animals as sentient beings. Around the same time in a court case in America, personhood for chimpanzees was sought.
Dr Albert Schweitzer who received the 1952 Nobel Peace prize for his philosophy of “Reverence for Life” stated “I am life that wills to live, and I exist in the midst of life which wills to live”.
As ethical human beings – much more than just being vegetarian – let us resolve to have from this day onwards, reverence for all life. BWC’s leaflet “Help Animals and Yourself!” in English should prove useful to some extent in achieving this resolve.
|
|
|
Killing or Hinsa
|
|
Have you come across a non-vegetarian who is willing to slit the throat of even one animal of the many he or she regularly eats? These are the very people who relish the flesh of different creatures… killed by butchers. Simply because of their desire to eat them, they conveniently ignore the fact that they themselves are responsible for the slaughter of innumerable innocent animals.
Meat, leather, skin, hair, bones, organs, blood and all other animal body parts are in demand as products and by-products – a huge demand which is readily met by abattoirs and processing units. And it has given rise to different businesses and investors who think of animals as commodities for commercial exploitation and of the resultant monetary gain.
|
|
|
Who is Responsible for Hinsa upon Animals?
|
• The person who manufactures or invests in a company which produces the instrument which kills. (Knife, gun, fishing equipment, poison, etc.)
• The person who sells the instrument which kills, or promotes its sale. (Includes animal welfare organizations which encourage the use of so-called ‘stunners’ in slaughter houses.)
• The person who buys or pays for the instrument which kills; as also the person who takes a commission on such a transaction.
• The person who practices and supports ‘mercy’ killing and ‘humane’ slaughter.
• The person who breeds, sells, buys, traps, etc any creature for slaughter or exploits them. (Includes dairy and livestock farming.)
• The person who actually performs the act of killing. (Slaughtering, hunting, shooting, fishing, etc.)
• The person who watches the killing or indirectly supports the person who does it by way of monetary investment or otherwise. (Includes animal welfare organizations which practice ‘mercy’ killing. And those who earn blood money from companies involved in animal products.)
• The person who sells the carcass including the person who benefits from profits from such a sale.
• The person who cooks or 'processes' the carcass.
• The person who eats or utilizes the carcass or even its by-products. (Flesh, bones, leather, etc.)
• The person who buys or feeds the processed carcass to another human or an animal. (Includes dogs & cats being fed goats & fish.)
• The person who watches the carcass being eaten, supports the person who eats it, or indirectly utilizes it as in consumer items containing animal ingredients. (Includes monetary support given by parents to children whose vegetarian ethics are contrary to theirs.)
• The person who is indifferent to the killing and brushes it aside as “some thing that happens” even if he himself is not a party to any of the above. |
Demand and Supply
|
It is therefore ethically wrong for meat eaters to absolve themselves of blame by saying animals would be killed any way even if not for them and that if they did not buy meat some one else would. Similarly, how can butchers get away by saying “if I don’t kill, some one else will”? Logically it boils down to a matter of demand and supply. If there is no demand the supply would automatically diminish. Moreover, it makes no difference whether the item is meat, leather or any other body part. Each and every part of the animal is paid for when bought alive by the butcher or sold by him after slaughter. |
|
The Rule of Minimum Harm
|
Beauty Without Cruelty asks people to follow a lifestyle of minimum harm in all aspects – food, clothing, entertainment, etc.
• If you are doing it for enjoyment, do no harm.
• If you are doing it for survival, do minimum harm.
• If you can do with a less harm-causing alternative, adopt it. If you can’t, question it.
• Finally apply the golden rule to what you are doing: put yourself in the place of the victim of your action. And listen to your conscience – the voice inside. It is the voice of truth.
|
Join BWC
|
If you do not want to be responsible for hinsa and gain practical knowledge on the subject join Beauty Without Cruelty, a movement that has been successfully working for animal rights in India since 1974. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
