opinion
This winter, a half century after the deadly duels of Spitfires and Messerschmits above England’s Channel ports, those ports saw more combat. This time, however, the battle was on the ground. And farmers were the bad guys.
For almost a month, animal-rights activists staged demonstrations at Channel ports to block export of British calves to the Continent.
This was not a minor incident – a thousand police were deployed at one point to protect a truck convoy carrying calves. At least 34 people were arrested for rock-throwing and other violence.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
The outcome of this bizarre episode was not reassuring for livestock producers anywhere. When the dust all cleared, several ports refused to handle calf exports, as did all major cross-Channel ferry companies.
The mob scenes of the English ports, however, are unlikely to be repeated soon in Canada, where the animal-rights movement is less entrenched.
A second major difference is that conditions of livestock transport in Europe are sometimes scandalous by Canadian standards. In one recent case, three British firms were found guilty of animal cruelty for transporting calves to France in trucks for 37 hours without food, water or rest.
Television news footage of such transport conditions prompted protests from many people who had no objection to slaughtering animals for food. “There is no need to transport animals across the Channel, adding seasickness to their miseries,” said one. “You should slaughter them near their farms and save them the agony.”
Another major consideration was that many of the calves were being exported for confinement in narrow crates that give them no room for movement. Although Britain banned the use of such crates in 1990, they are still legal for white-veal production in France and the Netherlands.
In response to the British protests, however, Dutch authorities announced that none of the 180,000 calves imported annually from Britain would be kept in narrow crates.
In one respect, it was an undeserved victory for a lawless campaign of violence that included razor blades and death threats being mailed to the British agriculture minister.
The protests, however, would not have taken place to such an extent if there had not already been abuses in European livestock treatment.
Canada’s livestock organizations, related agribusinesses, and governments deserve commendations for having created transport codes to prevent the type of abuse found in Europe. The English example is a useful reminder of the need to ensure such codes are followed.
