16 COMMENT
Sarah Mahon
“
When events become inflated to such commercial value, animal welfare is prioritised below entertainment and profit.
”
Portia Ladrido
“
There should always be a separation of church and state. We all have different beliefs.
”
E
Horses don’t choose to race!
very year the Grand National re-generates the controversial debate over animal welfare and rights. This is mainly due to the deaths of competing horses. But whilst many voices are heard calling for the abolishment of the sporting event, this does not deter the millions who sit quietly at home watching and enjoying it instead. This year, five horses have now died after injuries incurred over the three-day event. 10 million tuned in for the final race, a record viewing figure for Channel 4 and a record death rate at the festival for the last six years. In the past, horse racing has come under criticism for its use of whipping, drugs and of course the deaths of horses that have fallen. Animal rights groups such as PETA and Animal Aid consistently call for the banning of the sport altogether or stricter regulations to improve the treatment of the animals. Since 2000, 47 horses have died over the Grand National festival. Aintree holds what is said to be the world’s most dangerous jump (Becher’s Brook) and a common opinion is that the racecourse is too crowded with 40 horses competing in the final event greatly increasing the risk. It is not uncommon for seriously injured horses to be killed or sold off, as their financial value is now zero because they are no longer fit to race. This runs the risk of horses being seen as a replaceable tool; an instrument
for the jockey to use. Like any other sportsman, when their instrument is broken it is discarded and replaced. It is not just racing that endangers horses. Sports like polo incur damage to the animals through accidentally being hit with mallets or suffering leg injuries related to the fast pace turning they are made to do. Olympic equestrian events like show jumping and dressage also similarly involve risk to the horses’ health. The Grand National only receives more vocal negative attention because of the higher profile spectacle, the death and injury of animals being impossible not to notice. Some argue that of course all sport involves risk. But what differentiates horse racing from other sports is the animal not consenting to compete and risk injury. Also, I would argue, the element of betting- putting money on a sport that endangers the horses’ lives, is what gives horse racing an unethical image. Of course people who take part in equestrian sports are not all heartless owners simply in it for the money and entertainment. Clearly many retired racehorses are re-homed to caring environments and it would be unfair to tarnish racehorse owners as abusers of animals. A great deal of people, certainly on a lower profile event scale, love their animals and are devoted to them. But when events become inflated to such commercial value, animal welfare is prioritised
below entertainment and profit. The animal lovers can become blinded slightly and miss the basic point that no matter how well the horse is treated and looked after, they are still putting that animal in a position it has
not chosen, where their life is at risk. Euthanasia may be the humane option for an injured racehorse, but would it have come to this drastic measure if the sport were safer or banned altogether?
Pictured: Horse racing is controversial (Photographer: Paul via Flickr)
Why is religion still influencing the law?
R
ock legend Bryan Adams cancelled his concert in Mississippi after the US state passed a “religious liberty law” that aims to enable private enterprises and religious groups to refuse service to the LGBT community. This comes after Bruce Springsteen cancelled a show in North Carolina after a similar law against the gay populace, in which obliges them to use public toilets that match the gender in their birth certificates. While hearing these backward laws made my blood pressure rise, it is rather comforting to know that the rockstars are on my side. I am 1,000 per cent certain that religion should not be influencing laws, because if they should, then governments would be in a sticky situation akin to that of the Islamic State. I could be exaggerating, but isn’t having religion as law the core of ISIS? Fine, also Saudi Arabia, but that’s another issue altogether. You could argue that a community in the south of Siberia also makes their religion as their law and they are peaceful, kale-loving people. But you also have to note that these people never go down the mountains, they wear white all the time, and they praise a leader in his early 50s who looks like Jesus. Feel free to Google this if you don’t believe me. What I’m saying is that in order for a religion as law to work, you have to
purposively be in some sort of community that think the same say as you do, and have a complete disregard of contemporary society (aka go off the grid and start a life outside the city.) Otherwise, discrimination in any shape or form becomes inevitable. There should always be a separation of church and state because we should acknowledge that we all have different beliefs. Laws cannot interfere with these beliefs because these are all very individualistic. If the state would want to satisfy every single citizen, then they will be contradicting each other, making laws completely pointless. Laws, first and foremost, are there to bring order to a civilized society. They shouldn’t be there to merely satisfy one political, cultural, or economic group over the other as this is the sickening root of discrimination. Law and religion are very challenging subjects to cover because it varies from person to person. Two Catholics living in the same state could have views and principles that are poles apart from each other. In an ideal world, we have laws so we don’t go on a killing spree when people do us wrong while we have religion to make us realise why it is wrong. In the real world, we don’t even need to have a religion to know what is wrong from right, and like ISIS, the law allows you to do harm to other people.
Supporters of these laws in North Carolina say that they are just trying to guard the interests of those that have been victimised by men who would pose as transgenders, attack women and children, and then use the legal protections as cover. While it is justifiable, it also shows how these people have been living in fear. It is upsetting that it seems we are always expecting the worst from people within our own communities.
If we all continue to think like this, how are we any different from Donald Trump who wants to build a 20 billion dollar wall? I am sure that these laws were passed with good intentions in mind. I believe we all try to come from a place of kindness, but somehow, because there are times that we become too self-involved with our own issues, we tend to forget those who are also fighting their personal battles.
Pictured: Organisations in Mississippi are legally allowed to refuse service to gay people (Photographer: Paul Sableman)