Farm Animals, General News, Live Transport

EU: Study About EU-Mercosur Agreement Wrongly States That Animal Welfare Standards Apply to Agri-Food Trade.

17 February 2022

A study requested by the International Trade (INTA) committee of the European Parliament analyses the trade aspects of the EU-Mercosur agreement and recognises that the animal welfare provisions foreseen in the agreement are weak. However, the study wrongly states that imports of animal products must comply with EU animal welfare standards.

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the study published in November 2021 as far as it recognises that animal welfare “is closely linked to sustainable development” and that the current deal “gives rise to questions as to whether [it] fully responds to the EU’s strong stand on the issue of animal welfare as such and its potential trade implications”. As long stated by Eurogroup for Animals, the EU-Mercosur agreement is a bad deal for animals, nature and people.

However, the study misunderstands the requirements that imports of animal products need to comply with, and hence wrongly concludes that the conditional liberalisation for egg products included in the deal is “closing a gap” for imports of animal products. Indeed, the study argues that in the EU, “animal welfare standards are quite ambitious”, and that given the ongoing revision of the animal welfare legislation and the European Citizen Initiative “End The Cage Age”, these standards “are likely to be defined even more strictly in the future”. As a consequence, the study suggests trade implications “since exporters are often required to conform with EU legislation by way of a certificate on equivalence to be presented on importation (calves, pigs, slaughtering, transports)”. Furthermore, the study, while analysing the liberalisation of agri-food trade, wrongly states that “in general, all products need to fulfil animal welfare standards”.

This seems to be a confusion between animal welfare standards and general import standards. Imports of animal products, which are often produced under poor animal welfare standards, do not need to comply with EU-equivalent animal welfare standards (on farm practices or transport), except for those at the time of slaughter. And imports of live animals, which are low, need certification mainly on health issues. Import standards are for instance, veterinary controls and maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides.

This misunderstanding possibly led the study to assume a “notable exception” for egg products that would not need to comply with animal welfare standards. This “notable exception” would be “addressed by the preferential scheme on eggs, as the EU attached a condition to its liberalisation offer in view of compliance with relevant EU standards”.  However, the conditional liberalisation on shell eggs, far from “closing a gap”, is merely a step in the right direction with the first animal welfare-based condition in a trade agreement. 

Eurogroup for Animals calls on the EU to uphold the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy, and to take the opportunity of the revision of the animal welfare legislation to include a trade aspect in the future EU legislation on animal welfare. In parallel, the EU could extend the conditional liberalisation of the trade in shelled eggs, and to agree on animal welfare and sustainability-based conditions required to access tariff-rate quotas or liberalisation in all animal products, including the respect of EU-equivalent animal welfare standards. 

Regards Mark

Standards – What Standards ?
General News

The victims of the meat eaters

What is the ultimate justification for abusing animals?
How do people justify their horrible treatment of animals?
Preferably not at all, of course, and that’s a shame, because most people are familiar with the problem of meat consumption.

In 100 years, people will judge animal eaters with the same disgust we view slave owners today.

regards and good night, Venus

Vivisection

Lawsuit against Elon Musk’s Neuralink: 16 laboratory monkeys dead

A U.S. medical group has filed a lawsuit and federal complaint against UC Davis (University of California)  over sometimes-fatal monkey experiments at a lab funded by Elon Musk.

The animals had parts of their skulls removed in order to implant Neuralink electrodes in their brains.

Neuralink was founded in 2016 by Elon Musk.
His vision of the company’s goals is to use this start-up to develop high-bandwidth brain implants that could then communicate with phones and computers, for example.

In July 2021, the US broadcaster CNBC reported that the start-up Neuralink received 205 million US dollars from several investors.
These included Google Ventures, Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

OpenAI LP is a company engaged in research into artificial intelligence and is funded by Microsoft, among others, in addition to the fact that Musk is also investing money in OpenAI-CEO.
Google Ventures is part of the investment arm of Alphabet Inc., the company formed in October 2015 through a reorganization of Google.
Thiel was a former Facebook investor, PayPal co-inventor and is considered one of the most successful founders and investors in Silicon Valley.
This brings the total investment in the company to $363 million.

Several US media have now reported that Musk had paid more than $1.4 million to the US University of California, Davis (UC Davis) by 2020.
The money funded a research partnership that allows for the use of laboratory facilities where university scientists helped the company test its technology on macaque monkeys.

The nonprofit organization Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has now filed a clearly worded lawsuit and federal complaint against UC Davis over suspected lethal monkey experiments at the Musk-funded lab.

The website of the PCRM, a national non-profit organization with more than 17,000 medical members, reports that “Elon Musk and Neuralink experimented on rats, pigs and monkeys to develop a new brain-computer interface (a system , which enables the human brain to communicate directly with a computer)”.

However, studies have shown that the development “of these interfaces can be achieved using human-relevant, non-animal and non-invasive methods,” according to information from the PCRM.
Invasive means to interfere with an organ for diagnostic purposes.

The allegations against Musk and Neuralink are immense and would confirm frightening events.
The lawsuit is based on nearly 600 pages of existing documents that were only released after the Medical Committee filed a first lawsuit for access to public records in 2021.
In addition, the Medical Committee filed a second lawsuit in Yolo County Superior Court against the release of documents to compel the university to release videos and photos of the monkeys. According to the PCRM’s website, the lawsuit states:

“Most of the animals had parts of their skulls removed in order to implant electrodes in their brains as part of Neuralink’s development of a ‘brain-machine interface’.”

The US website Daily Beast wrote to Musk about the findings and allegations.
He replied that Neuralink was doing everything possible to take care of “our animals”.

Continue reading “Lawsuit against Elon Musk’s Neuralink: 16 laboratory monkeys dead” →

Environmental, Farm Animals, General News

EU: Decerle Report Prioritises the Economic Interests of Farmers Over and Above the Welfare of Farmed Animals.

Press Release

16 February 2022

European Parliament backs retrogressive report, which lacks ambition for animal welfare and flies in the face of citizens’ wishes

On February 15, the European Parliament (EP) adopted the Implementation report on on-farm animal welfare with 496 votes in favour, 140 against and 51 abstentions. 

Eurogroup for Animals, along with its members Compassion in World Farming and Four Paws, strongly opposed the adoption of the final report asking Members of the European parliament (MEPs) to adopt the alternative ENVI opinion instead. 

Despite the use of “animal welfare” in its title, the adopted report focuses more on farmers’ economic interests rather than improving the conditions of animals in EU farming systems.

When the report was announced civil society had great hopes that the European Parliament would pay full attention to a fundamental issue, close to citizens hearts and EU policy makers, as reflected in the European Commission’s Farm-to-Fork Strategy and their commitment to revise animal welfare legislation, as well as in the Parliament’s own position to phase out the use of cages.

The final Resolution – the adopted form of the report – even goes as far as contradicting what was adopted in previous Parliamentary Resolutions, specifically: 

  • Foie gras, which involves force-feeding, is presented as respecting animal welfare criteria despite the fact that the EP recognised the incompatibility of foie gras production and animal welfare in its recent resolution on the ECI “End the Cage Age”.
  • The report suggests focusing on more clarity rather than improving standards. This is not in line with the EP’s resolution on the Farm to Fork Strategy which considers it important to set higher legal standards for animal welfare.
  • The report erroneously claims that some measures believed to improve animal welfare may in fact be counterproductive and undermine other aspects of sustainability, namely health and safety on farm, as well as the the fight against antimicrobial resistance and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is diametrically opposed to the Parliament’s own Resolution on the Farm to Fork Strategy, which clearly states that a high level of animal welfare is important to sustainable development and has the potential to strengthen the economic and environmental sustainability of European farmers.

An implementation report is, unsurprisingly given its name, supposed to assess the implementation of current on-farm animal welfare rules. In this, the adopted Resolution from the EP fails in two respects: it neither addresses the problems with the current rules, nor does it focus on welfare of the animals themselves. Instead it preoccupies itself with the maintenance of a broken system that incentivises the worst kinds of farming for the environment, health and, most of all, for the animals.

MEPs have sent contradictory messages to an ambitious and progressive European Commission. Earlier in the term, they wanted better welfare, new systems of farming and a shift in-line with the Commission’s Green Deal. Yesterday they voted for something that is nothing other than a defence of the status quo. Whilst we commend those MEPs who fought for the far more ambitious opinion from the Parliament’s Environment committee, who stood up for the welfare of animals in-line with citizens’ wishes, the European Parliament has, as a whole, backed down to the narrow interests of big agriculture.

Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals

Regards Mark

Farm Animals, General News, Stray Animals

EU: The Dog and Cat Meat Trade: Interview With MEP Petras Auštrevičius.
Office of Petras Auštrevičius

18 February 2022

Four Paws

As investigated by Eurogroup for Animals’ member, Four Paws, every year over 10 million dogs and cats are killed for their meat in Southeast Asia, with Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam hosting the most robust dog meat trade in the region.

Animals of unknown health status are sourced to supply the trade from multiple locations. Traumatised, diseased, with depleted immune systems and without food and water they are transported in poor hygiene conditions, in many cases, for thousands of kilometres and cross-border, often mix with other species at marketplaces, slaughterhouses and restaurants. Why should it matter to the EU to bring this trade to an end?

MEP Petras Auštrevičius, is Chair of Companion Animals Working Group of the European Parliament Intergroup on Animal Welfare and Conservation.

Many people do not realise that while in the EU most cats and dogs are treated as companion animals, there are other parts of the world where cats and dogs would be qualified as farm animals. Would you be able to elaborate on that? Why is such meat imported and what are the countries that import it?

It is estimated that annually 10 million dogs and cats are killed for human consumption in Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia. The trade involves extreme animal cruelty during capture, transport, holding and slaughter with dogs and cats often stolen or forcefully taken from their owners. In Vietnam the trade kills approximately 5 million dogs and 1 million cats, in Cambodia 3 million dogs and an unknown number of cats, and in Indonesia 1 million dogs and hundreds of thousands of cats. The trade is also existent in Africa, although poor data on the topic are available. The meat is largely found as a delicacy, however, there is quite poor social support for continuation of this trade. A great majority of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Indonesian citizens do not see the future for the cat and dog meat trade. The speakers and participants agreed that now is the time for ASEAN countries to ban the cat and dog meat trade and enforce their legislation on animal movement and rabies eradication to protect the consumers and prevent future pandemics.

Looking at the immediate impact on animals, why is it a particularly cruel trade for the animals?

Animals of unknown health status are sourced to supply the trade from multiple locations. Traumatised, diseased, with depleted immune systems and without food and water they are transported in poor hygiene conditions, in many cases, for thousands of kilometres and cross-border, often mix with other species at marketplaces, slaughterhouses and restaurants.

Why does the dog and cat meat trade matter to Europe? What risks does this trade bring?

The cat and dog meat trade and consumption pose a significant human health risk and severe diseases like rabies, cholera and trichinellosis are associated with it. Moreover, the meat contains high levels of antibiotic residues leading to antimicrobial resistance. Finally, mutated canine influenza or canine coronavirus carry a potential of infecting and spreading to humans giving sufficient ground to future pandemics. While human health risks are largest in the source countries, EU citizens can be affected as well. Disease outbreaks and zoonoses can jeopardise European travellers in Southeast Asia. Mutated viruses can be imported through pets rescued from the meat trade. Therefore, the EU has a direct interest to stop the cat and dog meat trade. Nobody expected the outcomes of COVID-19, that is why we must not be complacent.

Are there regulations in place at EU level to address this situation? Have these been sufficient?

ASEAN Delegation outlined the need for the European Parliament to address this issue, as well as for the ASEAN Delegation to commit relevant ambassadors to change. There are certainly things the European Parliament has and will be calling for, however the initiative for any concrete action lies with the European Commission. As there is currently no exchange of data on the movement of cats and dogs, as well as no tracking of animals, even across the EU, it is quite easy to imagine the worst case scenario. In particular, with the increase of demand for cats and dogs, and trends across the foreign rescue animals which is concerning when the health status of the animals is not properly screened.

Is there a way that we can encourage the EU and Member States to improve their response and finally put an end to this trade?

Certainly, the EU and the Member States must raise awareness among their citizens. A ban on the trade and consumption of dog and cat meat and introduction of legislation, as regulation would not resolve the cruelty involved therein and alleviate all health risks are the way forward. Such bans exist in China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Thailand.

Want to learn more about the dog and cat meat trade? 

Visit Four Paw’s website. 

Regards Mark

Farm Animals

No mega dairy farm in Noviercas -Spain !

Noviercas is a small village of 158 inhabitants in Northeast Spain. It is located in the province of Soria, inside a region known as the “Spanish Siberia” because of the low population density, less than 8 people per square kilometer.

This village became famous when the co-op Valle del Odieta announced last year their intentions to build a 20,000-cow factory farm in the village.

Macro dairy farm of Valle de Odieta SCL in Caparroso- Greenpeace Spain

With 23,520 cows (16,128 dairy cows and 7,329 suckler cows), 900 hectares of land, a consumption of 600,000 kilos of fodder and four to six million liters of water every day – not to mention a planned production 180 million liters of milk peryear – the Norviercas factory farm would be the biggest dairy farm in Europe, and the project immediately became controversial for all the potential impacts it could bring to the area and to the farming sector.

Farmers are leading the opposition, as they estimate this factory farm would destroy 700 direct jobs, one third of the dairy farms in the region.

t would produce around 368,000 tons of manure per year, the equivalent of the waste produced by a city of 4.4 million people.

And the farm would consume between 4 and 6.35 million liters of water per day, more than the total consumption of the city of Soria (40,000 inhabitants). Impacts on the environment and local communities can be huge.

This farm has nothing to do with the European model of livestock farming.
We have witnessed fierce resistance to previous dairy mega factory farms with 8,000 thousand cows in the UK or even actions of civil disobedience against a 1,000-cow farm in France.

We cannot allow this model, imported from the US, to come to Europe.
Impacts of these huge factory farms are well documented and are reason enough to ask for a ban.

Stopping this farm would be a really symbolic step against the invasion of factory farms in Europe to defend a sustainable and social model of farming.
You can read more about it here in English, Spanish and French.

We will campaign with our allies to stop this project. Stay tuned!

https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/blogs/a-20000-cow-dairy-farm-in-europe-no-way/

PETA has started a petition against the construction of the Mega Stall.
Please sign and share

“Help stop plans for a new mega dairy in Spain that would be the largest farm in Europe and the fifth largest in the world.
If the plans go ahead, 23,000 cows will be kept in filthy, cramped conditions so that the owners can maximize their profits.
Can you imagine – 23,000 cows?
That’s more than the human capacity of London’s O2 arena!

Mega farms like the proposed one exploit animals on a scale that is almost unimaginable” (PETA)

Petition: https://secure.peta.org.uk/page/99582/action/

And I mean…One has to think about that slowly: 20 000 Cows on one Farm in North Spain, plus their calfs, as without calves no Milk!
50% of the calves are male, so useless for the further milking business.

All these Cattle have to be feeded, feeded more as usual as they are producers in the process of milk production.
So where will they get all the Power Feed from?
Corn and soy beans? What about the Carbon footprint?

And what about the immense suck of energy, as these cows live and produce best at about 7 dregrees Celsius?
They would have to cool them down constantly with water – another Problem, a lot of water will be spoiled, like at the farm in Saudi Arabia…

Subject to the outstanding approvals, the project is to be implemented in several growth stages over the next five years, i.e. by the end of 2022.
The Farmers Union: described a dairy farm of this size as a “time bomb” for animal health.

A single case of a disease like bovine brucellosis in the herd would require 20,000 animals to be culled. The compensation would amount to more than 16 million euros; Four times more than the annual animal health budget allocated by the regional government.

Although the sale of milk plummeted after the onset of the Corona virus and millions of healthy cattle were euthanized due to the closure of slaughterhouses, pointless investments are still being made in XXL stables!
In order to take action against the investment project, the farmers’ association has started a signature campaign.

But not everyone in Noviercas is against the system.
Some have sold their land to Valle De Odieta.
And politicians are also behind the project.

The mayor, stand up for the farm.
Presenting the 2019 project, Pedro Jesús Millán Pascual said “the dairy farm would bring jobs and more people to the town”.

But not a word is heard about the fate and suffering that awaits the 23,000 animals

My best regards to all, Venus

Hunting

Model for Europe: Luxembourg six years without fox hunting

Hunting lobbyists always like to use the lack of natural enemies as an argument when it comes to hunting encroachment on wildlife populations. At least in the case of foxes and other predators in our latitudes, this is a false conclusion.

Fox hunting has been banned in Luxembourg since 2015.
The horror scenarios projected by the local hunting association FSHCL, but also by the German colleagues at the time, did not come to pass: Environment Minister Carole Dieschbourg confirmed only last year in response to a parliamentary request from the opposition that after years there were no indications of an increase of the fox population in Luxembourg.

Controls and counts with wildlife cameras would rather indicate a stable, constant stock.

Even the infestation of foxes with the fox tapeworm has decreased since the hunting ban.
While the fox tapeworm was still diagnosed in 40 percent of foxes in 2014, it was recently less than 20 percent.

Nor can one blame the foxes for the decline in ground breeding or even biodiversity.
In Luxembourg, for example, the partridge was almost extinct at the beginning of the 1980s, despite the fact that fox hunting was still intensive at the time.

According to the Minister for the Environment, the loss of biodiversity, particularly among ground breeders, is due to the destruction of the habitat and the associated loss of insects as a source of food.

Luxembourg could be a model for Europe when it comes to fox hunting.

However, there is probably a lack of political will in this country to make hunting at least animal welfare-friendly.
For most animal species there is not even a reasonable reason for hunting within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act.

Together with many other animal protection societies and the Fox Action Alliance, Wild Animal Protection Germany demands the abolition of fox hunting and the review of all animal species subject to hunting law with regard to a reasonable reason.

https://www.wildtierschutz-deutschland.de/single-post/fuchs-luxemburg

And I mean…While the German lust killers, also known as “hunters”, pursue the foxes with all sorts of violent means at this time of the year, the neighboring European countries present themselves in some cases much more rationally when it comes to hunting.
And they are proud that the abolition of fox hunting, which has been going on for over six years, is so effective.

German hunters kill and dispose of over 400,000 foxes every year
In most federal states, the red fox is hunted without a regular closed season.
During the mating season, during the gestation period, while rearing the young, while wandering in search of a territory.

They are hunted with traps, dogs are sent into their burrow, the retreat for the birth of the puppies, they are kept in barren kennels to train so-called burrow or ground dogs on them, they are victims of battue hunts and fox weeks.

Every year well over 400,000 red foxes die in Germany from hunting!
Foxes cannot be used as food, and fox fur has long ceased to be popular.
About 97 out of 100 foxes killed are thrown into bushes or, at best, buried.

The hunters in Germany basically justify the fox hunt with three “reasonable” arguments:

– The fox also transmits diseases that are dangerous to humans, such as rabies and fox tapeworm,
– It is by no means endangered because of its high population and thirdly
– The fox has to be hunted because there is a risk of wiping out ground-breeding birds that have become rare.

There is also not just one single scientifically reliable research paper that could be used to justify the three steep theses mentioned.
This is especially true for the blind claim that more intensive fox hunting would have a stabilizing effect on the populations of endangered species.
That is just as much nonsense as the statement that hunting can significantly reduce the fox population.

The opposite is true, as scientists and wildlife biologists can attest. The more vehemently these animals are pursued, the higher their reproduction rate.
In this way, losses can be compensated for quickly.
Nature arranged it that way.

So…the only honest reason for fox hunting and any other hunt is, that the perpetrators enjoy it.
And a murderer won’t let that can be spoiled.

My best regards to all, Venus

Hunting, Uncategorized

Pangolin: soon no more?

Researchers believe that the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China was ground zero for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Until its closure, numerous wildlife species were kept there, tightly crowded in cages – a rich breeding ground for pathogens.
Pangolins sold there are believed to have been an intermediate host for the virus, which originated in bats.

Pangolin poaching and smuggling is a lucrative business, with Chinese and Vietnamese restaurants willing to pay up to $400 for a kilo of pangolin meat.
Pangolins have become so rare in the wild that coming across one is not unlike finding a winning lottery ticket for villagers in remote corners of Asia.

Traffickers are frequently arrested while shipping hundreds of live animals or pangolin scales by the ton, but the true magnitude of the trade remains in the dark.

Eight different pangolin species exist in Asia and Africa.

All four Asian species are already on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and pressure on the African species is mounting.
The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has published an interactive map highlighting the international nature of the pangolin trade.

The survival of the pangolin is in the hands of the Chinese and Vietnamese governments – only they can pass and enforce stricter laws to curb hunting and shut down trafficking.

Back­ground

As endangered wildlife, pangolins have not received the attention they deserve, even though all eight species of the scaly creature are on the Red List. The situation is most dire for the critically endangered Chinese and Sunda pangolins, which could become extinct within the next fifteen years.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has seen the need to establish a specialist group dedicated to preserving the animal.
Hunting and illegal trade are the main forces driving the toothless insectivores to extinction – no other mammal is subject to such extensive smuggling.

The pangolin’s scales – which consist of keratin, the same material as human fingernails – are believed to have beneficial properties in traditional Chinese and Vietnamese medicine.

The ills they supposedly cure include “excessive nervousness and hysterical crying in children, women possessed by devils and ogres, malarial fever and deafness” (Nature 141, 72-72, 08 January 1938).

Pangolin meat is considered a delicacy and often among the most costly dishes on restaurant menus.

According to some estimates, hunters have killed one million pangolins over the last ten years. Between 2011 and 2013 alone, 23,400 illegally traded animals were confiscated.

Please call on Chinese and Vietnamese policymakers to stop standing by idly while the pangolin is hunted to extinction.

(Petition) https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/963/take-pangolins-off-the-menu-now#more

And I mean…Pangolins have been around for at least 47 million years.
This could be over soon.
The four Asian species are almost extinct.
The meat is considered a delicacy, the scales are used as talismans and, above all, for therapeutic purposes.
And according to local ritual customs, they are real all-rounders for stomach problems, asthma, rheumatism, inflammation, menstrual problems or even blood cancer.
Even the potency is said to increase the scales.

The stupid thing about it is that, like rhinoceros horn and human nails, they consist exclusively of keratin.
But tragically, it’s also a major destination for the global, illegal and devastatingly efficient wildlife trade, with up to 2.7 million pangolins poached each year.
International trade in pangolins or their scales has been banned under the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species since 2017.

In China, there were signs of change.
International trade in all Asian pangolins was banned in 2000.
While it’s a positive move, but many experts remain skeptical that these measures will make a difference.
Despite all measures, illegal trade of pangolin continues to be on the top of illegal wildlife crime around the world.

Clearly, measures to combat illicit trade are not enough.
In order to better protect the animals, measures must be taken along the entire supply chain.
Because so far, illegal traders in Africa and Asia have only rarely been arrested and if they are, then the majority of cases do not even go to court.
One speaks of well-equipped criminal syndicates.
Paying for, collecting and transporting large volumes of pangolin products requires significant upfront investment and coordination.

It also likely means the smugglers don’t have to worry about being intercepted by law enforcement as they transport tens of millions of dollars’ worth of shipments weighing tons.
Therefore: it is essential that those caught smuggling pangolin parts are properly punished.

And that on an international level.

My best regards to all, Venus

General News

Canada: Freedom Convoy protesters threatened with losing their pets! the new face of a dictatorship

Protesters arrested as part of “enforcement actions” could have their pets taken into care, Canadian authorities have warned
Canadians taking part in demonstrations against Covid-19 mandates were threatened with inadvertently relinquishing their pets if arrested by the police, authorities warned on Thursday.

According to an announcement on the Ottawa-By-law Twitter account, anyone arrested at demonstrations as part of “enforcement actions” by the government could have their animals placed in “protective care” for a week if they are unable to look after them.

The suspect must pay for the animal’s care. After eight days, if arrangements have not been made, the animal would be considered “relinquished.”
A tweet from Ottawa’s regulatory service included a photo of a dog hanging out of a truck window.

The ongoing protests in Canada began weeks ago as a convoy of truckers protesting vaccine and quarantine mandates for border crossings, but the movement has morphed into much larger demonstrations against Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Freedom Convoy protesters threatened with losing their pets“Attention animal owners at demonstration If you are unable to care for your animal as a result of enforcement actions, your animal will placed into protective care for 8 days, at your cost. After 8 days, if arrangements are not made, your animal will be considered relinquished. pic.twitter.com/OkbXc8RE3c”
— Ottawa By-law (@OttawaBylaw) February 17, 2022

The pets warning is the latest effort by the government to break up the protests, which have created “illegal blockades,” according to Trudeau, at busy border crossings and in major cities.

Trudeau recently invoked the Emergencies Act, giving police more scope to deal with protesters.
Canada also ordered a freeze on crypto donations to the Freedom Convoy, which has gained support from high profile pundits like Jordan Peterson.
The threat to seize pets has renewed criticism of the Canadian government, with some arguing that they are going too far.

“One possible, explicit punishment for participating in a peaceful protest in Canada — beyond freezing your bank accounts — is that the state will take your pet and, after 8 days, declare it “relinquished” if other “arrangements are not made.” https://t.co/9hrVSyHNlF”
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 17, 2022

Police have issued warnings to protesters continuing to demonstrate, increasing their presence this week in cities like Ottawa, according to CBC.
Police in Ottawa also began erecting fences in front of government buildings, including Parliament Hill and the Senate on Thursday.
Police have also been issuing written warnings to protesters, promising harsher action in the future.

“You must leave the area now.
Anyone blocking streets, or assisting others in the blocking streets, are committing a criminal offence and you may be arrested,” a written notice handed out on Wednesday read.

https://www.rt.com/news/549762-ottawa-freedom-convoy-pets/

And I mean…The Canadian truck drivers are particularly impressed because the “Prime Minister” Justin Trudeau wants to prescribe the injection without exception.
This little thing leads to one of the largest motorized protest marches of all time in Canada.
We are on the side of the protesters and support them.

Trudeau’s policy is a much more dangerous virus than the SARS-COV-II virus and all its variants, which have now been totally wiped out.
Some comments copied from the article:

My god, how low can this government sink? Trudeau has no ethics, no morals, no brains. How can he treat people like this? I detest him and all he stands for!

Ottawa Police has lost their minds from incessant trudeau boot licking.

Trudeau is taking personal bank accounts and now their dogs. At some point, extreme, unsustainable Liberalism always turns into a far left controlled dictatorship and attacks it’s own people, just like the United States.

Threatening to remove their Kids and now their Pets, tyrants will be dictators, no doubt about that.

Yes! That’s just how dictators are; they use all means to achieve their goals!

My best regards to all, Venus