True animal rights

When will people such as Shane Johnson (December 14) finally realise that animal rights means the abolition of the property status of all animals (including humans) and in essence, animal rights advocacy is advocacy for the abolition of any unnecessary and/or involuntary use of non-human animals by humans, as if they were human property?

People falling short of this goal and purpose while claiming to be "for animal rights" are either simply misinformed, deluded or dishonest.

So in short, this means that despite his claim to be "forever in favour of protecting animal rights", Mr Johnson is nothing of the sort. A fundamental animal right is the right to liberty, and property cannot have rights. At best, property can only have certain privileges which can be revoked at any time by the property owner.

The choice is simple: Either non-human animals are not property (and therefore have the right not to be used as if they were property - which means circuses violate their rights) or else non-human animals are human property with no rights. Mr Johnson concludes his letter by saying that "any animal rights group activist worth his salt should know (the) facts before dissuading people from visiting these circuses or any other organisations that use animals to entertain". To that I answer that any animal rights activist worth his salt knows the basics of animal rights theory, and recognises the simple fact that involuntary use of rights-bearing individuals is in itself abuse. This makes all animal circuses abusive of at least one basic right - the right to liberty.

For a more detailed reply to Mr Johnson's letter, please visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com, where people interested in true animal rights may also find a list of books on animal rights philosophy.