<<Back to index

Comment | Read Comments (117)

What codswallop the anti-circus lot spout, horses in cages....Ha! I saw this circus a few weeks ago on a visit to London and saw the animal travel and living arrangements for myself, they are as good as any multi million £ racing stables! I have in the past watched them being trained and never seen any evidence of, or suspected any cruelty. I do wish that when people speak and try to influence others they did so from a position of knowledge not one which appears to lead to the spreading of misinformation!

The horses do not live in cages! The animal rights AGITATOR is a lying, slanderous and yellow-livered busy-body. Zippos Circus is known the world over as a first-class enterprise. The show should be cherished by the local people and not be a victim of obviously false comments. How come "allegations and lies" are always quoted? Isn't the public tired of hearing the same old song and dance?

From an animal rights perspective, circuses violate the rights of nonhuman individuals. The rights view is not, therefore, concentrated on cruelty issues - that is animal welfarism. The animal rights position would close down circuses due to the rights they violate, so it is not relevant for the circus people to respond with animal welfare claims. The issue is [italic]use[/italic] not treatment.

In all businesses that exploit animals there is cruelty and neglect. Anyone who has ever been to one of these so called 'shows' can see the animals are not happy. Its degrading for the animals and degrading for the people who watch it. Keep animals out of circuses!

I agree with Roger Yates. London "Animal Rights" is clearly [italic]not[/italic] an animal rights group. One of the protestors, Mr. Jones, said: "This is nothing but a [italic]cruelty[/italic] roadshow." Clearly, from an animal rights perspective, cruelty is [italic]not[/italic] the issue. Saying circuses are wrong because they are curel is reactionary animal welfarism. The animal rights view is that all instrumental [italic]use[/italic] of animals is [italic]inheretly[/italic] wrong -- a rights violation. This view is [italic]qualitatively[/italic] different from the (animal welfare) view espoused by Mr. Jones. I wish "animal rights" groups like London "Animal Rights" would stop mis-labeling their reactionary animal welfare claims as "animal rights". This conflates reactionary and staid -- and ultimately inherently useless (we've had animal welfare for 200 hundred years; yet today the human hegemony over other animals has barely been mitigated -- welfarism with animal rights, thereby hindering the development and appreciation of the [italic]proper[/italic], abolitionist animal rights movement inspired by the theories of Professor Gary Francione.

Abolishing the property status of animals begins here,anthropocentrics.So accept it,domineering commodifying humanists!

Animals do not BELONG to humans, just as women do not belong to men! I totally agree that welfare will not win this fight, it is not the way forward... Abolition of specism is the ONLY way to help save the animals!!!

The animal rights debate is about whether our [italic]use[/italic] of animals can be morally justified. Andrew Coates completely misunderstands the issue. He illegitimately presupposes that our use of animals is morally justified, and then merely asserts that circuses are accetpable as long as the animals they hold captive are treated okay. But the question is whether we can justify using animals [italic]at all[/italic] -- whether it is acceptable to make them suffer [italic]at all[/italic] as a result of using them instrumentally. We recognise that all humans have an interest in not being property -- in not being owned slaves. We protect this interest with a right. Now animals also have an interest in not being property -- in not being owned slaves. The question, therefore, is: do we have a morally sound reason to recognise this right in the human context, but to deny it in the animal context? In fact, humans obviously are animals. So the question isn't: do animals have rights? The question is: given that one species of animal already has rights, do we have a morally sound reason to deny rights to all other animals species? No- we do not. Whatever "special" charateristic you think humans possess, but that animals lack, that justifies treating humans and animals differentially re: possession of the basic right not to be property, will be either lacked by some humans (e.g. the intellectually impaired) or possessed by some animals. It is clear: since humans have rights, nonhuman animals should also have them. Human rights logically imply animal rights. We treat humans and animals differently re: basic rights in the absence of a morally sound reason justifying the differential treatment. This is invidious. It is a prejudice -- speciesism. It is analogous to racism. Racists discriminate against people on the basis of a morally irrelevant characteristic -- skin colour. Speciesists discriminate against nonhuman animals on the basis of an equally irrelevant characteristic -- species membership. Speciesists -- like Andrew Coates -- ignore the characteric(i.e. sentience -- the capacity to experience) shared by humans and animals relevant for the attribution of the basic right not to be property, and instead invidiously deny rights to animals simply because they do not belong to the human species. It is [italic]not[/italic] the task of the animal rights movement to reinforce reactionary animal welfare -- thereby making the wrongness of animal use dependent on "cruelty" -- by basising its claims re: animals on issues of treatment about "crulety" and "suffering". It is the task of the animal rights movement to educate about speciesism and animal rights -- the view that all animal [italic]use[/italic] is morally wrong because a violation of rights.

I have read the foregoing comments with interest. Is far as the horses are concerned they are well looked after by a trainer who nhas devoted his life to looking after horses and loves them. They are in perfect shape. I am a horse-rider and know a healthy horse when I see one. The horses are not nor neverwere kept "in cages" they are kept in well appointed stables and are 'turned out' every day and allowed freedom to roam for extended periods and to socialise together which is right for thgem. Theprotestor quite clearly demonstrates a complete lack iof understanding of the species and is just seeking to promote the supposed animal welfare cause for self gain. I have seen the leaflets that were propogated at Blackheath and they are full of the same falshoods and generalisations. Also at Blackheath there were clams of ill-treatment to a pet duck because it "was made to walk on wet grass" - you could not make this up. I was at Blackheath on several occasions ( I went to see the fair there too) and to say that the audience generally having seen the show was against the horse act they had just seen is not true - nor was it true in many other places where I have met audience members of the same show. Other people posting messages here are disappearing up themselbes with pseudo-intellectual arguements about considering animals as human beings. This is not only incorrect but dangerous and leads to maltreating animals in fact by not addressing the real needs of each species - needs that are addressed well by Zippos. I have not heard any criticism here of horse-racing or use of police horses - might that be because those organisations have more money to pursue individuals who casually libel them and propogate reactionary lies? [bold]Everybody get real![/bold]

As proproetor of Zippos I have had my chance to comment although I would like to add that the stables, (referd to as cages) were in fact designed to the specification and approval of BORN FREE. I am now following this debate with interest. What I should like to see is comment from people who saw my circus at Blackheath or drove past and saw our beutiful horses playing in their excerise areas each day. Some of the commentators so far seem to come a very long way away from Blackheath?

Martin. You are rather missing the thrust of some of the contributions here. Born Free is an animal welfare org, so that will hardly satisfy an animal rights audience. Whether in stables, 'beast wagons' or cages, the rights of horses are violated.

What a bizarre debate! Yes horses have rights, as animals to be treated with respect & have good care and treatment etc, but I'm afraid that they aren't human and therefore Don't have the same rights. The animal rights do gooders, with whom I agree in some instances on certain issues are begining to sound like they live in Planet Cuckooland I'm afraid. Animals are animals, end of. Throughout the World, for thousands of years, animals have been used by & alongside man, whether as Pets, food, transport etc etc. I fail to see how using horses in a well run circus differs from any of these. Maybe it may not be the perfect scenario for them, but hey the World isn't perfect, there is far worse out there, than Zippo's horses!! Having visited Zippo's and seen their horses running free in big enclosures at many grounds, and their new custom built stalls & horse box transporter. I know that circus animal husbandry & treatment in the UK has improved hugely in recent years. There may have been a publicly publicised case against one circus a few years back in the UK, which I personally was not impressed with seeing, but this does not make every circus cruel!! And certainly does not justify banning them. There are plenty of pet owners out there who love their pets, and just because a few owners mistreat their animals, doesn't mean pets should be banned!! I could go on... My conclusions are animals are NOT human, don't pretend they are. This isn't a perfect World. Horses in Zippo's circus actually brings beautiful and talented animals to the general public, giving them pleasure & more respect & interest in them!

Again, I agree with Roger Yates. The fundamental question is not about the state of this or that circus, but rather about whether circuses are justified [italic]at all.[/italic] The animal rights position is that they are not. Circuses are a violation of the right of animals not to be used as [italic]property.[/italic] Animal rights advoctes should [italic]not[/italic] get caught up in discussions about the conditions of abuse. The conditions are strictly [italic]irrelevant[/italic] to the rights argument. Since our [italic]use[/italic] of animals cannot be morally justified, it follows -- regardless of what the conditions of abuse are like --that all circuses are unacceptable because circuses [italic]as such[/italic] are a violation of animals' rights -- of their fundamental right not to be used instrumentally, as property. My advice to any rights advocates reading this is: Do not get caught up arguing about issues of animal treatment. Since animal exploiters have no justification for using animals [italic]at all[/italic], to talk about issues of treatment concedes too much, by making it appear as if, by improving treatment, the assessment of the morality of the conduct can be fundamentally altered. But it does not alter Zippos circuses are illegitimate because they violate animals' rights. Treatment -- stable sizes etc.-- does not come into it. (A note on Born Free: if they think that certain human uses of other animals are acceptable, then they are a speciesist and welfarist group and have no authority where animal rights is concerned. If anyone wants to explore these issues further, then I recommend the work of Gary Francione.)

To try and reason with so called Animal Rights Organisations is futile. However big the enclosures, loose boxes or cages they will never be acceptable. The Horses on Zippo's are kept in fantastic condition and are looked after 24/7. My only complaint against Zippo's is that they don't have any other animals. Animals thrive in Circus. If we were all vegans, who have dictionaries for breakfast, then the British countryside would be void of any animals. Farmers don't keep fluffy lambs for fun. If I were an animal I would want to be in the Circus. Preferably a British or German one, not that I have anything against any of the others. Vive le Cirque!

Adrian: you are quite correct: animals are not human -- but humans are animals. Therefore, one species of animal already has rights. A right is simply a way of protecting an interest. Logically, then, in order to be the sort of being that can have rights, you merely have to have interests. Like humans, animals have interests -- in life, in liberty, in not suffering etc. Logically, then, animals are the type of beings that can have rights. There is nothing (logically) absurd in saying that animals have rights. The next question, therefore, is: do we have a morally sound reason for protecting humans' interests by right, but not protecting animals' interests in the same way? The animal rights position is that we don't. We protect all humans with rights, irrespective of their particular characteristics -- from the most intellectually impared to geniuses. Yet we deny rights to all animals. This is blatantly unfair. Human rights logically imply nonhuman rights. We deny animals rights because we are speciesist. Animal rights is simply the idea that animals' interests -- in life and in not suffering etc.-- should be protected in the same way that humans' interests are, namely, by right. We are not saying that animals are the same as people. Animal rights is the next step in human moral evolution.

Philip Roylance is correct: animal rights advocates will [italic]never[/italic] accept that any form of animal enslavement is acceptable. And you think that there is something wrong with this? On the other hand, I doubt you've ever spoken to an animal rights advocate. What you have seen hitherto -- PeTA et al. -- has [italic]not[/italic] been animal rights. So if you've spoken with any of these types of people, you have not been speaking to animal rights advocates. The [italic]proper[/italic] animal rights movement -- the movement inspired by Gary Francione's work -- is only just emerging. We think that veganism is obligatory; and we completely reject animal welfare, as being both speciesist -- the system whereby humans ease their consciences about their exploitation of other animals -- and wholly ineffective. We are here to [italic]abolish[/italic] animal slavery, not to measure cage sizes and endorse "humane" systems of domination.

Adrian from London makes a fascinating contribution to all of this. Incoherent bluster, but fascinating nonetheless. However, it is a sad indictment of the present animal movement that Adrian is so ignorant of and confused about the case being made by animal rights advocates. Such advocates know that nonhuman animals are not human ones. However, human beings are animals. Nevertheless, human and animal rights are different. Animal rights are the basis of human rights – all animals share basic interests - but there are many human rights not relevant to nonhumans, which we tend to call positive rights. “Animals are animals, end of” is a meaningless and rather silly assertion in terms of ethics. The problem for Adrian is that he cannot prevent himself thinking this is about cruelty to animals or “loving” them. However, such issues have nothing to do with animal rights thought. I’m happy to agree with Adrian that the world is not perfect: 30,000 human children dying every day of starvation-related issues testify to that, as do the 17,000 or so nonhumans who are killed every second so humans can eat their muscles.

We have worked on Zippos Circus and were there all the time for several months with the horses. We saw things first hand and at no time did we ever see an animal abused or horses in "cages". All you have to do is visit Zippos Circus and see for yourself. We have worked on many circuses in America and Europe and you will never see animals better taken care of than you will on Zippos Circus. Whoever is making the statements against Zippos Circus is terribly mistaken. Visit Zippos Circus and see for yourself.

Why is it that you humans can have "superstars", but we horses can't? I might be an old nag now, but I could show that young lead stallion a thing or to!

mr burton., i have been to your circus and only when i had payed my entrance did i know you had animals. i thought it had been banned,. it does not say animals on the poster. i didnot like the way the animals were used. you criticise those who dont like animals being used as not living near blackheath but your supporters seem to come from yorkshire new york and florida. i dont think any of those are near blackheath

How intriguing to read the bizarre comments of those who would distort a biological fact (that is, that humans are also animals) to claim total equality of status for other animals. Oh, that we all had time to sit around inventing new strains of abstruse philosophy. These are fascinating intellectual conceits, but they don't relate to the real world. Man's attitude to that world, including its animal population, could do with changing in many ways. As the dominant species, we are destructive of the animals' environment and thus of our own! It would be far more useful to take a lesson from the way the circus people work in partnership with their fellow-creatures, communicating with them to help them demonstrate their personalities and their capabilities. To take the philosophical debate a little further, we should note that the circus people help the animals realise their potential instead of remaining in their primitive state. It is laudable to help disadvantaged humans develop their mental and physical skills; shouldn't the true Animal Rights person, in their belief that animals have the same rights as humans, subscribe to the idea of assisting animals to do the same?

[bold]bold[/bold] ALL I HAVE SEEN SO FAR ARE COMMENTS ABOUT THESE WONDERFUL WELL CARED FOR HORSES, I THINK THAT THE PROTESTORS WERE ACTUALLY ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, THEY SHOULD OF IN FACT BEEN STANDING WHERE THE POOR TIRED DIRTY LOOKING DONKEYS WERE GIVING RIDES BY THE ICE-CREAM VAN, A GOOD WASH AND GROOM WOULDN'T OF GONE A MISS, FOR THE PEOPLE TAKING THE MONEY ASWELL, SURELY THIS IS WHERE THE ISSUE SHOULD BE, THESE POOR DONKEYS HAVING CHILD AFTER CHILD SHOVED ON THEIR BACKS FOR MOST OF THE DAY IN TEMPERATURES I EVEN LIKE TO AVOID.

Well a heated debate is occuring here! Hands up those of you who wish to see enforced veganism as a result of an animal rights pressure group! Do they seek to restrict my rights in such a campaign? Clearly their agenda was always thus, sadly the general public are slow to wake up to the reality, first they try to ban circuses, then show jumping, then fishing, then little Johnnys goldfish, then meat then milk & eggs! Perhaps they should be a little more honest as to their intentions in order that the public can make informed decisions as to whether or not to support them?

Chris of Hereford seems to me to have hit the nail on the head! Lets get real, this is not about circuses, or probably even animals this is about Power. One group with (what will be percieved as being highly radical-as indicated above- and unnaceptable views by the public at large) attempting to force its view and preferences onto others. In the past it has apparently been happy to do this by force, threat and by digging up the corpses of loved ones to get its point over, by releasing animlas into the wild to a pretty much certain death! Being able to read a dictionary and use long words does not make your argument any more valid than another individuals, it does not demonstrate that your argument is anymore thought out than any others. There are postings here that are written in such a way in order to bully others not to post. It seems indicative of the way such 'animal rights' groups operate.

What a vitriolic lot the 'animal rights' activists are, with their bully tactics and psuedo-scientific posturing. So nobody is fully understanding the difference between 'animal rights' and 'animal cruelty' issues? We [bold]do[/bold] understand your point, but do you understand that the majority of people would like to see an end to [bold]cruelty[/bold] to animals, not an end to man's contact with animals? I would hate to live in a world without animals in our fields, with no dog walking or cats greeting their owners when they come home. Man and animal have co-existed for thousands of years, in what is mainly a mutually beneficial relationship. Leave Zippo's beautiful, healthy well cared for and stimulated horses alone. Anyone who knows animals also knows that they don't enjoy being bored, and relish having some purpose in life.

I myself have had dealings with the Antis. If they are not protesting about animals it is something else like the air we breath. Can they get their facts right before saying things. Horses live in STABLES!!!!! not cages. They are out in fields when not working. At night brought in for their own safety against so called animal rights people letting them loose. What is that all about. Does this not present a harmful act towards the horses. And not only horses. They think it is OK to try to let Lions and Tigers out!!!! If circus animals are ill treated then when are you going to stop TV showing Crufts where the dogs are groomed within an inch of there lives and led on a lead that is kept so short it has to keep its head up. Plus to top it all they sit either in a CAGE or in a bay for hours on end. Another is the horse of the year show. Are horses meant to jump over a course of jumps? These people that go on the TV with dog acts with the dog walking behind them on hind legs with their paws on their backs is this natural? This is all entertainment. Horse racing/jumping, Pidgeon racing, dog racing, Farms, Zoos, need I go on? Zoos are being left alone because they are in breading programmes, but at the end of the day the animals are still locked up 24 hours a day no matter how it is dressed up.

The Animal rights LOT will not be happy until the whole world is eating nothing but greens and beans and PANDERING to thier "four legs good , two legs bad " attitude. FACT circus animals in this country are all well looked after but unfortunatly a small minority have BRAINWASHED society. Circuses care about the rights animals do have more than the antis as all the antis ive met are just interested in a argument - the animal rights movement is a attack against mankind and people need to realise one thing "help animals , not the animal rights movement" (its a scam) Maybe they should all be put in a human cannon ball act and shot to cloud cookoo land

I can see were this is going. The animal rights lobby is losing the arguement. Up to now AR have debated this issue reasonably here. However if they loose here their next step (out of frustration) will be direct and violent action against me. [bold]Help![/bold]

To argue for "non ownership" of animals would not only mean the end of circus horses but also the horses ridden for work or pleasure not to mention the millions of dogs and cats etc "owned" as pets - where do these animals go? Here at home 4 years ago I was adopted by a cat (I think previously abandoned) she thinks I am an ok guy and I feed and care for her but under MY rules which she is happy about - if I was to diassociate with animals to I abandon her again? Non association/segregation is a strange form of apartheid - ie animals in their corner of the world humans in ours! We do not live in a vegan utopia and therefore in our society as is all association with us and non human animals should only, can only be judged on a welfare issue.

Having previously been privelged enough to have extensive access to Zippos and the staff that work there I have seen absoultely nothing but a number 1 priority and treatment of the horses and ponies. Every decision taken is based around the welfare and safety of the horses, down to the smallest detail of location of the [bold]STABLES[/bold] (not cages), high water pressure, the location of every piece of equipment around the tent so they don't get scared when walking to the ring etc... The leaflets handed out at Blackheath and recently at Herne Hill did not contain 1 single and I repeat a single factual piece of information or even a small quote from a qualified veterinary expert. The claims of mis-treatment or suffering are completly mis-placed. Whether we as humans have the right to choose the horses life is a valid point but the fact remains the horses are mentally stimulated from the routines, fed, watered, groomed, allowed to interact with each others as normal and provided clean bedding each night. Try arguing to anyone that they can be GUARENTEED this in the wild each day and night. The claims are in my view extremely offensive to all staff at Zippos and most of all Mr. Roberts, the very proud, caring and loving owner of the horses, and his stable hands.

Chris: helping disabled people and frocing animals to do tricks in circuses so that circus owners can make money are hardly analogous. Some disabled people require help because their diabilites limit their autonomy -- their ability to live independent lives. Animals, on the other hand (non-domesticated ones, that is) are fully autonomous; they are capable of living free and independent lives. A more apt analogy would be between [italic]autonomous[/italic] humans and animals. Because we value autonomy, we would regard it as an unjustified infringement of freedom to meddle in an autonomous person's life -- it would be authoritarian. Similarly with animals: they are acpable of living autonomously and independently, and so to hold them captive in circuses -- under the absurd pretence of "helping them realise their potential" -- is an unjusified infringement of their autonomy -- of their right to freedom. You are also clearly begging the question. The issue is whether the institution of animal property can be morally justified. You merely [italic]presuppose[/italic] that it can, and then say that circuses are a good thing because they help animals reliase their potential! And we are not inferring equality between humans and animals from the fact that humans are also animals. Our claim is that, in terms of fundamental rights, humans and animals are equal. Humans and animals are not equal for some things. For example, when we are deciding who to allocate driving licenses to, humans and animals are obviously not equal. But in terms of deciding whether one of them should be eaten or used as a forced organ donor, humans and animals are both equal -- they both equally have the right not to be property, not to be used exclusively as a means to another's end. Animal rights is simply the claim that animals' fundamental interests should be protected by right. That is, animals basic interests (in life, liberty, in not being property) should be protected against being sacrified because it would benefit others to do so.

I can see were this is going. The animal rights lobby is losing the arguement. Up to now AR have debated this issue reasonably here. However if they loose here their next step (out of frustration) will be direct and violent action against me. [bold]Help![/bold]

[quote][bold]Sally[/bold] wrote: mr burton., i have been to your circus and only when i had payed my entrance did i know you had animals. i thought it had been banned,. it does not say animals on the poster. i didnot like the way the animals were used. you criticise those who dont like animals being used as not living near blackheath but your supporters seem to come from yorkshire new york and florida. i dont think any of those are near blackheath[/quote] On the Posters Sally and leaflets, they clearly show pictures of horses and as well on the website. So dont use that as your excuse!! I have seen how well Tom Roberts Looks after his buetiful horses and how well he treats them. If they were being badly treated then i doubt that they would perform with such elegance and look so great. All these so called animal lovers from the animal rights loony brigade need to do a bit of research. If it WAS cruel, then zippos would be shut down as cruelty to animals is agaisnt the law. I also seem to remember that one of the protesters had leather shoes on!!!

Martin: you say we are losing the argument? In what way? And the abolitionist animal rights movement is [italic]nonviolent.[/italic] Nonviolence is one of our [italic]foundational[/italic] principles. Veganism is one's personal commitement to a nonviolent way of life. The animal rights movement seeks justice and respect for all species. It is thus the ultimate [italic]peace[/italic] movement.

David: the issue is not about whether circuses are cruel. The issue is about animal use -- whether our use of animals can be justifed. In supposing that circuses are okay as long as they aren't cruel, you are merely begging the question about animal use. Animal rights effectively follows from a very conservative moral principle: that we shouldn't cause animals unnecessary suffering. Eating animal products isn't in any way necessary. We can live perfectly healthily on plant-based diets. We eat animal products simply because they give us pleasure. As such, eating animal products is a by definition a completely unnecessay use of animals. Therefore, anyone who believes it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals should be vegan. Anyone who isn't vegan violates the principle that it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. And David, it is clear that you are a reactionary who reflexively acts to preserve the status quo. Warning that animal rights supporters are the "loony brigade" reminds me of the supporters of human slavery who warned that the slave abolitionists were "dangerous". Which animal rights philosopher do you think is a "loony"? Are you going to critique his views for us? Or are you hysterically name-calling because animal rights doesn't conform to your reactionary world-view?

The RSPCA are quoted in the above article: [bold]Question:[/bold] Did the RSPCA once commission an investigation into the use of animals in circus? [bold]Answer:[/bold]Yes, but when shown the results declined to publish due to the findings which suggested that the animals involved benefitted greatly from their human contact & training. [bold]Link:[/bold] http://free.polbox.pl/k/kiley/

there is nothing wrong with : A - making money from animals , why don't the antis campaign outside steak houses who believe make more money from animals than a circus (got nothing against steak houses , just making a point) B - animals in entertainment.to say animals cannot be used in entertainment is Political corectness gone mad

Martin Burton should be ashamed of himself, he is trying to muddy the waters by whining about extremists and direct action when all the protests at his circus have been peaceful. The fact is that even the RSPCA, the most moderate and mainstream animal welfare society, is totally opposed to using animals in circuses, as the article clearly states. What earthly reason would the RSPCA have to lie about circus animal cruelty? Zippos is one of a dwindling minority of circuses which still uses animals. All-human circuses with acrobats, jugglers, high-wire acts etc are the future of this industry, think of the excellent Cirque du Soleil. It's time for Zippos to drop the animal acts and come out of the dark ages. Otherwise people will vote with their feet and support more humane forms of entertainment instead.

Do the protesters at Zippos also protest at showjumping, horse racing, riding stables, dog shows, etc? What do they say to people who have their dog or cat locked in the house all day whilst they are at work?

I have had the pleasure of watching Zippo's Circus on numerous visits over the last few years. All the animals i have seen there,are extremely well cared for,housed in purpose built and designed 'stables',not cages and travel between venues in a purpose built horse transporter,the same as police and race horses would. Perhaps the people who are protesting outside the show at the various venues,should be made to spend a day with Tom Roberts and his staff,to see first hand what daily life is like on a modern British circus for its animal stars. The RSPCA may well be against animals in entertainment,but it nevers tells anyone connected with circus,what they think is wrong with animal stabling or transport methods. There blanket answer is its wrong and we do not approve.Considering their own commissioned independant report by Dr.Kiley Worthington,who stated that animals were actually benefitting from the training and that the welfare of the animals was not inferior to that of animals in other husbandry systems etc etc etc,i still do not know how they can justify their comments. The circus industry will never be able to please the protestors,RSPCA etc,so my advice to the GREAT BRITISH CIRCUS industry is do what you do best.Please your customers. If they want animals,then give them animals.

There is no need to use animals in circuses and the majority of British circuses are animal-free. I hope people will boycott this show.

[quote][bold]No Veganism Here Please![/bold] wrote: Well a heated debate is occuring here! Hands up those of you who wish to see enforced veganism as a result of an animal rights pressure group! Do they seek to restrict my rights in such a campaign? Clearly their agenda was always thus, sadly the general public are slow to wake up to the reality, first they try to ban circuses, then show jumping, then fishing, then little Johnnys goldfish, then meat then milk & eggs! Perhaps they should be a little more honest as to their intentions in order that the public can make informed decisions as to whether or not to support them?[/quote] The postings here are enlightening, they reveal the real agenda of both the Animal Rights & the(inextricably linked)Animal Welfare groups. With postings from people describing themselves as 'Vegan Terrorist' it is difficult to attempt to argue that the movement is the 'ultimate peace movement' isn't it James? James may be happy to be a Vegan, I may not be, he of course asserts that in his brave new world [italic][bold]veganism is obligatory[/bold][/italic] I do however defend his right to such a choice, something he clearly will NOT do for me and my choices & decisions. His rights and wants are more important than yours or mine! James confuses me sometimes, clearly I am not as inteligent as he feels he is as he attempts to intellectually bully others here. James Says [italic]'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals'[/italic] [italic]'Our claim is that, in terms of fundamental rights, humans and animals are equal'[/italic] Which is it then? Are these statements contadictory? Am I right to be getting confused? John, be careful quoting the RSPCA, they have difficulty taking the high moral ground having commissioned the Kiley-Worthington Report and then tried hard to bury it when they didn't get the result that they wanted! James accused the first poster here of being [italic]'Speciesist'[/italic], maybe he is, who knows. His agenda does not appear to be one involved in removing rights from those around him as the agenda of James, John, Vegan Terrorist etc is designed to do.

"A speciesist" is possibly a racist and a sexist person too. It's all just a question of personal choice, is it? Some want to have sexual relations with children - just a question of personal choice? Human beings are social animals who construct their societies on the basis of their norms and values. "A speciesist" implies that each individual can simply make up their own values as a matter of choice. Maybe that's what just happened in the US and A - some guy just chose to shoot over 30 people.

Dear A Speciesist: I am clearly not bullying anyone. I advanced an argument that you do not like, and you maligned me as a bully in order to try to discredit me. If you have something subsantive to say, then I'd be pleased to here it. But since ad hominem is a logically fallacy, we we can ignore your attempts to short circuit legitimate debate by name-calling. I can see only one argument it your post: that we are restricting you rights in saying that you shouldn't be allowed to kill and eat animals. But of course, there are restrictions on rights. Everyone accepts that one's rights are limited by others' rights. Your right to liberty is limited by other people's right to liberty. We simply extend this idea to animals: since animals have rights, your rights are limited thereby. And whoever heard of a right to kill and inflict completely unnecessary suffering?! Because this is the right that you arrogate to yourself: the right to kill animals and to cause them completely unnecessary suffering (it is completely unnecessary to kill and eat them). This is a corruption of the idea of rights. Rights are extremely important: they protect our most fundamental interests. Yet you are claming that your "interest" in killing animals should be protected by right; and that it is an illegitimate infringement of your "right" for us to say that you shouldn't be allowed to kill and to cause unnecessary suffering. This is a complete corruption of the idea of rights -- which as I said, are supposed to protect our fundamental interests. Rights are fundamentally supposed to keep us safe from the encroachments of the state. They are not supposed to give us license to kill and inflict suffering on others. And you misquoted me. I did not say that 'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals'; rather I said that 'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals [italic]from the fact that humans are also animals[/italic].' Please do not misrepresent me in order to try to discredit animal rights.

I cannot believe the crap I am reading. Since when has any Antis Demos been peacefull? I know of shows and come to think of it Punters who have been verbally attacked and at some vehicles attacked, how is that peaceful? It would be interesting to see how many Antis have been charged with offences for harrassment, disorderly conduct, vandalism etc, against how many circuses for cruelty. If things were that bad and shows were considered bad then the councils, RSPCA etc would take any chance to do it. The fact that they are still running proves something. The RSPCA commissioned a report by their top animal behavourist Marthe Kylie Worthington, and it back fired badly. Although she said there needed to be some improvements, which have now been done, she was in the end satisfied that the animals led a good life. Where judgements have needed to be done they have been. The Antis have not been adverse either to infiltrating circuses and setting up certain events to help the circus people look bad. Look at the news for regular updates on Antis so called peacefull handling of situations. And true how many Antis ANIMAL LOVERS do you see wearing leather shoes etc. I knew some several years ago that were vegetarians. They run out of money and were starving but instead of turning to nature to provide for them they ended up sharing a stew.

Where on earth have we got onto the line of killing the animals? I thought that the debate was about circus animals!

While we are on the subject! if circus is considered cruel what about the Spanish High School. What they get the horses to do is so unatural Lets see the high almighty ANTIS try and stop them

I have an idea. When Antis show up at a show why not have a counter demo against the Antis to demonstrate about their abuse toward the circus peoples human rights and the punters human rights. As I believe it is an offence to cause suffering to another human being and a breach of HUMAN RIGHTS that is recognised all over the world.

Thought that you circus folks may want to see this. Found it on another web site. http://www.veggies.org.uk/nar/circus/circustat.htm Forwarned is forarmed.

Birmingham Jodie. What are you on about? You are effectively saying that it is a circus employee's right to violate animal rights. If you look at the picture of the demo in the original article - what harm to human animals are these people doing holding posters?