Every so often, Daphne Caruana Galizia has the habit of putting pen to paper and writing something which really irks me. More often than not, particularly when she writes about her pet hate subjects as the Labour Party and anything and/or anyone related to it, I prefer to ignore her. This being a democratic country, Daphne, just like everybody else, is entitled to hold and express an opinion, however warped of manifestly blinkered that may be.
But when I read her latest blog entry I couldn't help but cringe. Not that there aren't aspects of her latest blog with which I am in agreement. I do, in fact share her concern as regards the gist of her argument therein made, and namely that in this day and age the State can no longer abscond from its duty to provide for abandoned children as well as animals.
Having said this, in two distinct parts of her exposition, Daphne makes morally questionable statements that cannot go unchecked. In fact, she states that 'I disapprove of shelters on principle and believe that dogs which cannot be homed should be put down.' And as if this were not enough, she further adds that 'If he had no intention of caring for those kittens, he should have done the decent thing and whacked them over the head or drowned them in a bucket of water.
Given that this is the same person who felt so scandalised by the fact that Labour Prime Minister Dr. Alfred Sant made a solemn declaration rather taking a religious oath on assuming office, I feel that her apparent lack of moral convictions when it comes to animal welfare needs to be put under greater scrutiny for since when has it whacking a poor kitten on the head or drowning it in a bucket of water become decent? Since when has it become acceptable to put a healthy dog down simply because it is homeless?
These comments are offensive and clearly unacceptable in any self-respecting society. In my view, Daphne needs to take ownership of her comments and quickly retract them. Anything else would legitimately put serious questions as to her moral standards.
But when I read her latest blog entry I couldn't help but cringe. Not that there aren't aspects of her latest blog with which I am in agreement. I do, in fact share her concern as regards the gist of her argument therein made, and namely that in this day and age the State can no longer abscond from its duty to provide for abandoned children as well as animals.
Having said this, in two distinct parts of her exposition, Daphne makes morally questionable statements that cannot go unchecked. In fact, she states that 'I disapprove of shelters on principle and believe that dogs which cannot be homed should be put down.' And as if this were not enough, she further adds that 'If he had no intention of caring for those kittens, he should have done the decent thing and whacked them over the head or drowned them in a bucket of water.
Given that this is the same person who felt so scandalised by the fact that Labour Prime Minister Dr. Alfred Sant made a solemn declaration rather taking a religious oath on assuming office, I feel that her apparent lack of moral convictions when it comes to animal welfare needs to be put under greater scrutiny for since when has it whacking a poor kitten on the head or drowning it in a bucket of water become decent? Since when has it become acceptable to put a healthy dog down simply because it is homeless?
These comments are offensive and clearly unacceptable in any self-respecting society. In my view, Daphne needs to take ownership of her comments and quickly retract them. Anything else would legitimately put serious questions as to her moral standards.
Posts
1 comments:
Keith lil min taf tistaqsix ghalih.
Nies bhal Daphne li tobghod lil min ghandu ideal differenti minn taghha ma nehodhiex bi kbira li ma tikkalkulax xi kelb jew qattus.
Post a Comment