THE HYPOCRISY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS

The Magna Carta Libertatum, commonly known as Magna Carta, “Great Charter of Freedoms”, was a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England in 1215. This document became the first known treatise on human rights. It was first drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons. The law promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the crown. These propositions were to be implemented by a council of twenty-five barons, and not by the king.

Despite what was considered to be a major breakthrough in human civilization, later events in human history proved that such breakthrough did not necessarily change the orientation of oppressors towards the oppressed, it was only a significant event to be reckoned with. For instance, during the 15th century, Portugal, then subsequently other European kingdoms (including England), were responsible for kidnapping people around the west coast of Africa and selling them to slave masters in Europe and America to work on plantations and in mines. It must be noted however that slavery had long existed in human societies, but the transatlantic slave trade was very destructive especially to Africa.

Notwithstanding the devastating impacts of slavery on Africa, the demonic trade continued until 1st January, 1808 when the transatlantic slave trade was officially abolished in the United States of America. Little wonder that the abolishment came 3-4 years after the Berlin conference of 1804/05 wherein Africa was ruthlessly partitioned?

History has it that from 1760 to 1840, Britain’s economy experienced what Arnold Toynbee described as an “Industrial Revolution”. That is, a process of change from agrarian and handcraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacturing. This development clearly negated the need for slave labour, hence the campaign for the abolishment of slave trade. And to put it into proper context, the Berlin conference was a major post-industrial revolution event that was meant to partition the African continent and allot it to European countries as markets for finished goods and sources of raw materials for machine manufacturing.

In the next century, Africa experienced another form of dehumanization with a different tag known as colonization. This was the final straw that destroyed every iota of indigenous technological advancement and self-esteem of Africans. The continent was forcefully integrated into the orbit of monopoly capitalism with a clear cut division of labour as producers of raw materials and consumer of finished products. Colonization with its attendant racial biases towards the colonized people led to series of decolonization movements across Africa including human rights movements in the USA. But it was World War II that compelled world leaders (UN General Assembly) to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 in Paris. The document set out fundamental human rights of all peoples to be universally protected.

However, issues of human rights have remained contentious, especially as regards coloured people. The recent mass protests in the USA over police brutality against black people, leading to the Black Lives Matter movement, is testament to this fact. In Europe, blacks, particularly sports men and women, have been subjected to documented racial abuses while performing their sports. The aftermath of Bukayo Saka’s and Jadon Sancho’s penalty misses during Euro 2020 final match between England and Italy is another clear case.

Surprisingly, Westerners have decided to prioritize animals’ rights over human rights despite history favouring human rights protection from inception. Meanwhile, it was in 1876 that Britain passed the first Cruelty to Animals Act to regulate animal experimentation. But it was until 1966 when President Lyndon Johnson of the United States signed the bill to protect the handling, sale and transportation of cats, dogs, etc into law. This was eighteen years after the universal declaration of human rights by the United Nations.

Today, violating human rights attracts little or no penalty compared to when animals’ rights are trampled upon. For instance, there are two contrasting events involving two prominent footballers who ply their trades in the English Premier League. The first is Manchester United’s star defender, Harry Maguire. He was involved in a brawl outside a Mykonos town bar and was found guilty of aggravated assault, resisting arrest and attempted bribery in August 2020 while holidaying. Despite been sentenced to a 21-month prison term and suspended from football for three years, he and his other assailants were allowed to walk away free after the court acknowledged their clear criminal records.

The second one is Westham United’s star defender, Kurt Zouma, who is currently facing serious backlashes for “kick-dropping and slapping his cat”. Now, what Zouma did as recorded in the video making the rounds on the internet is considered to be animal cruelty and is hereby justified by the wide outcry against him. However, so many things seem wrong with both the intensity of the punitive measures already taken against him and others being suggested as follow ups. For example, his football club has reportedly fined him a whooping sum of £250,000 to donate it to animal charities; Adidas, a boots making company has relieved him of the endorsement deal he signed with them; and, the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals, RSPCA, has taken up custody of the two cats as Zouma is considered an unworthy pets owner.

Meanwhile, netizens are calling for the sacking of the player from football completely, describing how despicable his actions were. Even Adidas issued a statement saying: “We were very distressed by the video we have seen of Kurt Zouma. At Vitality, we condemn animal cruelty and violence of any kind”. Another animal rights group known as 30 Million Friends Foundation also condemned the “heinous act” and filed a complaint against him in France under the French penal code, seeking that he should be dropped from the national team.

Interestingly, football boots have traditionally been made from leather, which is animal skin, until recently when materials have evolved to the point where synthetic fiber is also now used. This means that Adidas has been at the forefront of animal cruelty from time immemorial, only that the company does so behind the scenes. Zouma’s “kicking and slapping” of his cat is considered a “heinous act” by animal rights activists while Adidas’ skinning of animals to acquire leather for their boots is termed “business savvy”. This is the same double-standards that allowed Harry Maguire to walk away with an “aggravated assault” against a human being while Zouma is losing everything for “kicking and slapping” a cat.

Therefore, for anyone calling out those who are raising concerns of racism in the Zouma case, you must explain why Adidas is a better example of animal protection than Zouma. Or better still, why did Maguire get away with aggravated assault on a human being despite copious evidence against him? Why did his football club not donate his two weeks’ wages to human charities? Or, why was Jordan Pickford not vilified for conceding two cheap goals against Belgium in the 3rd place match at 2018 World Cup but Saka and Sancho were made scape goats for missing penalties at Euros 2020? History shows that these biases exist and are always brought to the fore whenever opportunity presents.