Come in, walk in – come and marvel!

On the stage of the Circus Roncalli elephants with long tusks rise again on a pedestal and bow.
But after the show, the animals do not have to be in a tight cage and across the highway to the next town. Because: they are not real, but created holographically. For its new, animal-free concept, the circus of animal welfare organizations such as Peta is classified as “exemplary”.

Roncalli has banished wildlife from his program since 1991, and last year circus director Bernhard Paul said goodbye to the last animal actors – the horses. At least from the real ones: instead, horses made of stardust run through the ring as holograms; more than a million gold particles are animated according to Roncalli press spokesman Markus Strobl.

In 2018, the first holograms were shown at Roncalli. This makes the circus the first to work with holographic animals. But not the first animal-free: Even circuses like Cirque du Soleil or Flic Flac rely on acrobatics and Co. instead of animals.

The times have changed. Many of these circuses have long since canceled their sails, and the whole “circus” concept has also seemed a little out of time. Those who still travel the country with their programs face a sharp headwind. This often has to do exactly with the circus animals, because PETA and other organizations, but also more and more individuals refuse the conditions under which the animals have to live.

Bernhard Paul-director of the Roncalli Circus

The animal welfare organization PETA calls Roncalli the “most animal-friendly circus” in Germany. She not only praised Roncalli’s avoidance of animal suffering, but also that the circus has recently offered only vegetarian and vegan food before and during the show.
Meanwhile, the company also waives plastic in its food and beverage offer. “We want a circus that thinks with us,” says Bernhard Paul.

The circus director is aware that this innovation has also “hit the nerve of the times”. But that was not the reason for it: “That was a lonely decision of mine, in which many have said: ‘But this will be difficult without animals`. It was not. It was right. We notice what’s going on in other circuses that work with animals. ”

For example, animal rights activists have repeatedly protested against animal shows in circuses, and Circus “Belly” has caused a stir in recent years with court cases involving its chimpanzee Robby.

Robby-in the enclosure of the circus “Belly”

People have become more sensitive to animals in their awareness, says Paul. “It is clear that in a circus you have to transport the animals from city to city and that the places are not necessarily suitable for animal husbandry.” He also got a “guilty conscience”.
“It is not necessary to have animals in the circus, nothing is missing”, he is sure. When he announced in shows that they are now free of animals, applause followed. And the circus also receives prominent letters, as press spokesman Strobl reports: “Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin wrote us a fan mail and invited us to America. ”
Bernhard Paul has also been invited to Silicon Valley.

https://www.haz.de/Nachrichten/Panorama/Uebersicht/Circus-Roncalli-verzichtet-auf-echte-Tiere-die-Alternative-begeistert-sogar-Hollywood

My comment: The attempt to introduce a wildlife ban for circuses, there was already several times and has failed to corrupt German politicians.

And so far nothing has come of it: Three attempts in the Federal Council, 2003, 2011 and 2016, failed because of the blockade of the Union parties and because of the veto of the competent Federal Ministry.

The argument: The introduction of a ban would be equivalent to a professional ban, animal traders would thereby become unemployed!!!. Other European countries are more stringent: For example, in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Denmark, Ireland and other countries there is a ban on wild animals in the circus. In a few countries, such as Greece and Cyprus, animals in circuses are generally banned.

Thank you, Roncalli!
Now I can go to the circus again.
No animals are abused and “broken” for the amusement of stupid circus visitors.
I hope that other circuses will take Roncalli as a role model and make the same decision.

My best regards, Venus

It is a great success for marine mammals suffering from marine zoos: Canada has banned the confinement and breeding of orcas, whales and dolphins in captivity.
For the first time in history, the Canadian parliament voted in favor of an animal welfare law.
The decision will put an end once and for all to the cruel practices of the marine zoos that we have been protesting for decades by PETA.

Zoos and aquariums that violate the ban must expect a fine of up to $ 200,000.

Decision for the animals after years of procedure

For almost four years, the ban went through legislative procedures in Canada.
Meanwhile, many animal exploiters like the Marineland or the Vancouver Aquarium tried to stop the ban.
Fortunately, these efforts were unsuccessful and the law was passed. Throughout the process, lawmakers received tens of thousands of e-mails and phone calls from animal rights activists who supported the ban.
PETA USA also held numerous protests and convinced ocean zoo sponsors to stop supporting them.
Independent Senator and former Judge Murray Sinclair, who led the bill through Parliament, comments on the ban as follows:

“This bill is simple and clear. It is based on the assumption that it is very cruel animal cruelty to keep these beautiful animals in just those enclosures in which they were previously held”.

Existing animals will continue to be detained

The Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium are the only two ocean zoos in Canada still holding whales and orcas.
The facilities may keep their present animals in captivity and use them for profit purposes. However, they are prohibited under the new law to breed or capture new whales.

Canada as a model for other countries

With the ban, Canada shows how the public’s opinion on ocean zoos has turned.
More and more people are fighting animal cruelty and fighting for the freedom of fascinating whales and orcas. Unfortunately, there are still facilities like Seaworld or the Loro Parque, which lock the marine mammals in tiny pools and let them demonstrate tricks to the amusement of the public.

We very much hope that other countries follow the example of Canada and also ban the breeding and confinement of marine mammals.

https://www.peta.de/kanada-verbot-zoo-wale-delfine

My comment: It is important to pass on such information. Many people still ignore the conditions in which animals live in water parks.
They think that dolphins and whales naturally cooperate with the stupid acrobatic number and that they do it because they just are more intelligent than other mammals!!

They are forced to perform meaningless tricks and have to play the ever-smiling clowns  for stupid visitors. They are often separated from family members because they are traded between zoos and carried around.

Today we know that …
Orcas and dolphins live in large, complex, social groups and they can swim in freedom up to 100 km and dive several hundred meters in the open ocean every day. In captivity, these animals can only swim in endless circles in bare, narrow concrete basins and are denied the opportunity to live almost any natural behavior.

They are held in narrow, flat and monotonous pools where they can only stereotypically make their rounds . In addition, the artificially treated water leads to skin rashes and eye inflammation.

A single dolphin can bring up to one million dollars a year to its owner – which is quite realistic, if hundreds of brainless visitors are routed through the swimming programs every day and paid between 100 and 200 dollars per capita.

The marketing of dolphins as clowns, petting animals and acrobats generates billions in sales worldwide each year.

My best regards, Venus

Image: Pawel Kuczynski

When discussing vegetarianism with meat eaters, you will probably find that the focus of the argument is often on empty and false claims, such as, “As long as the animals do not suffer, I will continue to eat meat, done!” That sounds like, “As long as 2 + 2 = 347, I stick to my opinion, Basta!” Hard to say something appropriate and to stay inwardly relaxed.

When I heard this phrase, I replied, “Watch a carnage in a video or the life of the animals in a farm, how miserable these animals are to spend their lives!”
Then came the answer:  ” One does not have to know everything, for that we have a division of work in our society! “

This level of discussion can easily lead to discouragement among vegetarians. To preserve patience in such conversations, it is sometimes helpful to have some counter arguments at hand.

The millennia-old tradition of eating meat has produced some very interesting, sometimes outrageous and illogical arguments. Although some of the pro-meat theses quoted here are downright idiotic, the meat eaters using such arguments are also doing it very seriously!!

Argument 1: “Plants are also living things that can suffer, so you should then not eat them”

Answer: To equate plant suffering with animal suffering is pure nonsense and is certainly perceived as exaggerated, even by the one who says so.

Plants have neither pain receptors nor nerves.
Both are necessary to create the message “Aua”. The nerves send the pain stimuli to the brain, which are processed here first.
So … because they still lack pain receptors and a brain, the pain impulses can not be sensed.

Argument 2: Classification, “animals have no soul”

Answer: Of course, for centuries, the church has been diligently working on racism and discrimination, officially appointing the human species with God’s blessing the prevalent animal species.

“Animals have no soul, animals have only instincts and are therefore subordinate to humans. Animals are there to serve mankind with their flesh and goods “is the title of the church association.

It’s actually not hard to recognize the soul of an animal. However, meat eaters have made these creatures their slaves and victims, and the sight of the animal souls in his eyes could lead them to a serious remorse.

Argument 3: Political truncheon: “Hitler was vegetarian too”

Answer: The purpose is to connect Hitler and vegetarianism in order to achieve a political connection.

The purpose is to connect Hitler and vegetarianism in order to achieve a political connection.
In this case we should tell from a recently read newspaper article about a man, by profession butcher, who murdered women, and divided into parts – a meat eater. Stalin was also a meat eater, Sadam Hussein – a meat eater, Karacic, Milosevic – a meat eater, etc., and so on. ….

Argument 4: The tradition: “Man is a carnivore and has always eaten meat”

Answer: If that were the case, man could eat meat raw, as all carnivores in nature do.
From the remark that man has always eaten meat, it is also clear that everything should remain the same. It would be the same to say, “There has always been rape and war, so keep it up!”. The spiritual development of a person who brings such an argument is based on Neanderthal traditions!

Argument 5: The excuse: “I only buy from organic slaughterers”

Answer: Organic pigs are not gently caressed, they also die from bleeding.
In fact, there are neither organic killers nor organic butchers!

No murderer was acquitted because he killed his victim mildly or gently, or because he had previously kept it in a species-appropriate manner.

Image: ARIWA, German organic slaughterhouse

Argument 6: Attack: “You should rather fight for people than for animals”

Answer: It would be the same if someone who is engaged in Rwanda would be accused: “You should rather take care of the old people in this country, than any strangers in Africa!”

When asked in which areas the one engaged, who goes so into the attack, one receives no answer. By playing animal love and people love against each other, he runs a pretty bad business!
In reality, love is a basic attitude, animal love and people love are the same, it is the love of life!

Argument 7:  Rating: “Animals are not as intelligent as we are and may therefore be eaten by us”.

Answer: If the intelligence of a living being is to decide whether it must die or live, then we should also consider and abuse babies, mentally ill and disabled people as our subjects.
Anyone who brings such an argument should not only check his own intelligence but his own morality too.

Argument 8: Standard motto: “In animals it is the case that the stronger eat the weaker”

Answer: If there really was such a thing as a right of the stronger we should no longer condemn criminals, because a perpetrator is always stronger at the moment of the act than his victim. No victim would have the right to complain, because under this logic every victim would be automatically in the Wrong, because the perpetrator was stronger.

Argument 9: Stupid nonsense : Animals have no consciousness and therefore can not suffer”

Answer: The fact that animals have the same pain receptors as we have has been well documented. The proof has even been provided long ago.
There is much scientific evidence that even animals have a consciousness. It just simply does not know exactly how it differs from humans  -but even if that is not identical to human consciousness, that’s no proof that they can not suffer like humans.
Newborns do not (yet) have any awareness, but no one would question whether they are capable of suffering.

Because the ethically relevant question is not whether animals are as empathetic or intelligent as humans, but whether they can suffer.

The massive exploitation of animals for the production of food, in laboratories for senseless experiments, in the entertainment industry but also in a private attitude is therefore in no way justifiable. Honestly, it’s a daily murder and no argument can justify this murder.

There is no “humane” way to use animals. Where the goals of humans conflict with the needs of animals, the animals are the losers.

My best regards to all, Venus