Imagine What They Call Us...

animal farm links to original article

//ed. note: our editorial board is in full agreement with the sentiments
expressed by Sedat Vural  in the following item - no kidding!//

(Sabah Newspaper, 4 October 2011)

Sedat Vural, a lawyer from the Ankara Bar has brought the matter of people
addressing others usıng animal names in unpleasant circumstances to the
European Human Rights Court (EHRC), arguing that this amounts to an
insult to animals and that these epithets are contrary to the 'Universal
Communique on Animal Rights'.

In the petition he made to the EHRC, Vural states that when humans use
animal names like ox, bear, donkey, dog, cat and goat in regard to crude
acts and remarks made by people they're just shifting the blame,
whereas all these ugly actions have been created by people and are all
peculiar to humans. Vural added that using animal names in this regard lays
the ground for violence against animals, is an insult to animals, belittles and
degrades them. He noted that such remarks and actions were in violation
of the 'Animal Rights Communique' accepted by UNESCO on
15 October 1978 and the 'Universal Proclimation of Animal Rights',
accepted and promulgated in 1990.

Vural noted that the suit he filed in Ankara's 8th Minor Court to establish
these violations had been rejected so, having exhausted all domestic legal
avenues, he has applied to the EHRC.  He stated that 'the defense of animal
rights is an honor for humans. Animal rights are human rights' and added
that in Turkey when one person calls another person an animal name its
taken as an insult, with such names having become cliches used to address
people who do crude things.

Lawyer Vural enunciated these views in his petition as follows: 'although
the acts and expressions that are the subject of criticism have been
committed by humans they are attributed to animals not at all involved in
the said acts and expressions. Consequently, while these acts and
expressions that invite criticism have been perpetrated by humans the names
serve to degrade animals. The result is that these epithets have been
legitimized within the community and are considered appropriate.'

Vural has requested that the Ankara court's rejection be declared contrary
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Universal Communique
on Animal Rights, the European Agreement on the Defense of Animals
and the European Human Rights Agreement.