Barbara Kay
ザ・チャイナ・ポスト:2017年7月15日 土曜日 午前7:58(台湾現地時間)を読んで
> ARSF前回記事はこちら
> バーバラ・ケイが読んだ記事はこちら
(English Site)
Barbara Kay

2003年からカナダの全国紙 Nationla Post のコラムニストとして執筆を続ける。New York Daily News 他多数のラジオや雑誌など多くのメディアで、ジェンダー問題、ピットブルの社会問題を中心に執筆活動を展開している。

Since 2003, Barbara has been a weekly columnist for the National Post,
Barbara’s writing has also been published in in magazines such as the, C2C Journal Online, the New York Daily News, Campus Watch (online), Front Page Magazine (online), Pajamas Media (online), and the Prince Arthur Herald.
Barbara is a regular guest on a number of radio talk show, including the CBC’s Because News. As well, she is a frequent video blogger for Rebel Media.
In 2010 Barbara was a speaker at IdeaCity, speaking on the theme of “honour-motivated violence”.

2012: with Aruna Papp: Unworthy Creature: A Punjabi daughter’s memoir of Honour, Shame and Love.
2013: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: A Cultural Memoir and other essays.
2016: A Three Day event, an equestrian murder mystery.

Woodrow Wilson Fellowship (1964)
National Coalition of Men’s 2009 award for gender fairness in journalism.
2013 Diamond Jubilee medal for excellence in journalism.
2017 – Canadian Institute for Jewish Research “Lion of Judah” award.
> English


人間は死にたいと口に出して言えますが、犬たちは言えません。これは明白です。従って犬たちが死を選択する権利は決して侵害されないと考えられています (時に侵害されるケースがある事を私たちは知っています)。 ところが、犬たちは生きる権利を与えられているのだから、どんなに苛酷で惨めでむごい状態であろうと生きる方を選ぶはずだというのが、ノーキル政策の考え方です。


Animal “rights” and animal “welfare”
> 翻訳はこちら

The situation in Taiwan, as in so many other cities governed by what they assume is the most “ethical” human position toward dogs, serves to show what happens when animal “rights” and animal “welfare” become hopelessly confused.

One of the most common arguments one hears in favour of human euthanasia policies is that medically speaking, we treat our fellow humans worse than we treat our pets. The euthanasiasts never fail to mention how humanely we regard our pets when they are old and sick, or in constant pain from incurable conditions. We let them go peacefully as a kindness. Why, they say, can we not do the same for human beings in misery? It is a human right to die at the time of our own choosing, they insist.

Obviously human beings can voice their wish to die, and dogs cannot, so it is assumed that this right to choose will never be abused (although as we know, it sometimes is). But the no-kill policy assumes that given their right to live, dogs would prefer to live even in conditions that are inhumane, miserable and cruel. Not in theory, of course, but numbers are implacable monsters. How could it be otherwise than abusive when a policy makes it inevitable that because *some* dogs cannot be euthanized, conditions will deteriorate to the point of inhumanity to *all*.

It is important to keep making the distinction between animal “welfare” and animal “rights.” Animals do not have any innate sense of what rights are. Rights are a human idea, and so animal rights are what human beings decide they are. The right of an animal to live out its natural lifespan under any and all circumstances has never until recently in human history been considered sacrosanct. As the stewards of the actual natural world and its inhabitants, we are obligated to regard animal suffering with compassion, and to optimize the living conditions of our animal companions. But compassion must be joined with reason and a sense of reality’s limitations.

It is reasonable to encourage and enforce insofar as possible animal sterilization. But when that method is insufficient, it is also reasonable to cull “herds” in which the healthy are suffering through overpopulation.

Feel free to share my thoughts. Best, Barbara
アニマルレスキューシステム基金 トップページ