England: Remembering Vicki Moore –  British Animal Activist – Died 6/2/2000. “The fleece of the lamb could not hide the teeth of the wolf.”

By Danny Penman

VICKI MOORE was a leading light in the animal-rights movement and a tireless campaigner against bloodsports across the world. Even the most vociferous of bullfighters acknowledged her determination and bravery.

Moore first hit the headlines in 1987 when she saved Blackie the donkey. Blackie was destined to be crushed to death in Villa Nueva de la Vera, Spain, during the village’s annual fiesta. Every year, the villagers forced a donkey to carry the fattest man around the streets until the unfortunate creature was crushed and died of exhaustion.

After hearing of the donkey’s plight, Moore vowed to stop the festival. Sensing a fight, Britain’s tabloid newspapers all despatched reporters to the fiesta. Within hours of their arrival, rival newspapers started out-bidding each other to buy Blackie and fly him to a British donkey sanctuary.

Over the ensuing days, television crews and journalists from all over the world arrived in the tiny village. Drama soon descended into farce when Blackie was sold to both the Sun and the Star simultaneously. The resulting confusion led to a fist-fight between rival photographers and bitter exchanges between their editors. Moore settled their claims in characteristic style by declaring that “everyone had helped save Blackie”.

She was born Victoria Seel. Her mother was a club singer and gave birth to her daughter whilst touring Northamptonshire in 1956. Vicki followed in her mother’s footsteps and left home in London at the age of 18 and worked as a bunny-girl at the Kingsway club in Southport. It was here that she met Tony Moore, her future husband. The pair married when she was 20 and formed their own band. In the late Seventies, the couple became involved with the RSPCA and soon had a house full of rescued animals.

The publicity generated by Blackie’s rescue in 1987 turned the spotlight on Spain’s blood fiestas. Moore realised that nations could be humbled by exposing their cruel truth to the outside world. To do this she and Tony set up Fight Against Animal Cruelty in Europe in September 1987 in their Southport home. At great risk to herself, she exposed the scale of animal suffering in the blood fiestas using the simple power of the home video camera.

Her first video expose focused on the village of Manganeses de la Polvorosa in 1989. Every year, the villagers celebrated the feast of St Anthony by dropping a live goat off the church tower. Once captured on video, and shown to a horrified world, the festival was quickly outlawed by the Spanish government. Later she would pose as a tourist at fiestas across Spain, all the while gathering the evidence to shut them down. It was during one of her campaigns that she suffered the injuries which eventually led to her death.

In June 1995, in Coria, she was gored by a bull being chased through the village streets. Argentino inflicted massive injuries and no one expected her to survive. But her spirit refused to be cowed. Her first words after regaining consciousness were, “What happened to the bull?” When she discovered the bull’s name, she giggled: her favourite song was “Don’t Cry For Me, Argentina”. In subsequent years, when the pain of her injuries became too great, she would quietly call on the spirit of Argentino to help her.

Despite her ongoing suffering, requiring constant medication, Moore continued to fight for animal liberation. She was a determined campaigner against hunting, and never tired of reminding Labour politicians of their promise to ban blood sports. She also took the fight against bullfighting to Macao.

Vicki Moore’s life was, perhaps, best summed up by a Spanish newspaper after she was gored by Argentino: “The fleece of the lamb could not hide the teeth of the wolf.”

Victoria Lucille Seel, animal-rights campaigner: born Western Favel, Northamptonshire 24 December 1956; married 1977 Tony Moore; died Liverpool 6 February 2000.

Copyright 2000 Newspaper Publishing PLC

Regards Mark

Obituary: Vicki Moore (indexarticles.com)

31 January 2023

Written by Reineke Hameleers

For the first time in over a decade, on the legislative side things are moving forward for animals in Europe, as the European Commission is working on the much needed revision of its animal welfare legislation.

This is certainly something to celebrate. European citizens have been calling for new or better rules on animal protection for years as we witnessed scandal after scandal, particularly concerning farmed animals. Dozens of exposés by animal welfare organisations and damning reports by the Commission’s own services, demonstrated beyond any doubt that too many of our existing laws on farm animal welfare are anachronistic, blatantly disregarded or only partially enforced. This has caused, and is still causing as I write, unspeakable suffering to billions of sentient beings. 

Besides, as time went by, it became increasingly clear that our animal welfare legislation is based on outdated scientific evidence. The most recent opinions produced by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on animal welfare on farm and during transport, which should inspire the revision of EU legislation, point towards the same conclusion: the science has evolved. It is time for legislation to follow suit. The intention is there, finally. 

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “End the Cage Age” was an unprecedented success, which will possibly be mirrored by other ECIs and petitions on animal welfare that are gathering momentum. In its wake, the Commission committed to ending the use of cages in animal farming, which will require a profound rethinking of many existing intensive animal rearing systems (for laying hens, breeding sows, and rabbits, to name but a few). We are ready to use the best available science and defend best practices on animal welfare in the heated debates that certainly await us in the coming months and years. 

We cannot forget that the European Union, much as it is a major global exporter, still imports large amounts of animal products from other geographical regions. In many cases these products are the result of farming practices that would be illegal under EU animal welfare (as well as environmental and labour) legislation. If the EU continues importing animal products from countries with lower or poor animal welfare standards, arguably this poses a moral dilemma for European citizens who in the great majority do not want substandard animal welfare products in the EU market. 

This moral dilemma is only very marginally reflected in trade agreements. So far, only the Slaughter Regulation has been applicable to imported products. Things are not rosy: enforcing EU rules on the protection of animals at the time of killing has proven to be extremely problematic beyond the EU borders, as shown by several international audits and investigations. Certainly, much needs to be improved, yet this is the only way to go. 

Farmed animal welfare laws exist because the EU has acknowledged that animals are sentient beings deserving lives worth living. In light of this, the double standard that is currently in place for imports is untenable. 

It is often argued that WTO rules prohibit trade restrictions based on discriminatory standards as this could hamper equal chances for every nation to trade with each other on the global market. However, accepting imports from countries that do not comply with EU animal welfare rules arguably equates to violating the moral contract that the EU has established with its citizens. 

The successful precedents of the bans on EU imports of cat and dog fur and, more recently, certain seal products – which were declared compatible with WTO rules – clearly show that matters of animal welfare are primarily of moral concern for European citizens and as such they should be legally treated. If carefully constructed, trade restrictions aimed at protecting animal welfare can be compliant with WTO rules. 

Incidentally, it is often the case that products from countries with weaker rules for farmed animal welfare are cheaper. In the current scenario, where there is no obligation to label non-EU animal products, especially in processed food and in the hospitality industry, it is often impossible for consumers to determine the origin of what they are buying and eating. We are then faced with the paradox whereby citizens strongly demand even stricter rules for farmed animal welfare in the EU but as consumers they might be inadvertently supporting cruel farming practices elsewhere by buying low animal welfare products. 

One might wonder how big this moral issue can be. Looking at Eurostat data, we can only conclude that it is huge. Among the main exporters of animal products to the EU (beef, pig, poultry and lamb meats, eggs, fish from aquaculture) there are Brazil, Argentina, China, the United States, Ukraine, India, Vietnam and Australia. In these countries, farmed animal welfare standards are either vague, fragmentary, non-binding, or non-existent. And there’s more. 

Intensive animal agriculture is booming in many of these countries, a trend which, besides causing animal welfare problems, is environmentally unsustainable and a threat to public health. This should be all the more reason for the EU to impose its animal welfare rules on imports. Rather than seeing it as a barrier, the EU should approach this as a golden opportunity to promote higher-welfare and sustainable food production globally. Realistically, imposing requirements on imports will not force countries to change their entire animal welfare legislation straight away. However, as companies exporting to the EU are usually big corporations that are also pressured by NGOs to improve their animal welfare practices, their shift might eventually have a trickle down effect on federal and national legislations. 

In this way the EU will lead the race to the top on global farmed animal welfare standards, once again heeding the call from its citizens who clearly indicated they expect leadership on this. Nine out of 10 respondents to the 2016 special Eurobarometer said that they want imported products to comply with EU legislation. Additionally, citizens would like the EU to do more to promote its animal welfare standards worldwide.  

What does this mean in practice? Key aspects of the new and updated EU animal welfare legislation (on-farm rearing, transport, slaughter and labelling) should also be applied to imported products. This is the right thing to do, for so many reasons: it is what citizens want; it is a way to guarantee consumer rights; it will trigger positive changes worldwide; and it is compatible with WTO rules as it concerns the protection of public morals. Last, but not least, it will enable the EU to live up to its ambitions as global leader on animal welfare.

Regards Mark