FILE EUROPE

Convention Constitution Constitution for Europe and Bull-fight Petition for animals' welfare in the European Constitution
EU subsidizes bull-fights. Stop! EU and animal welfare: political goals The MINOTAURUS project Elections in 2004

Clipping from the following site : http://european-convention.eu.int/
The Convention aims at proposing, for the European Union to set up a frame and structures adapted to the evolving world, to the needs of the European Citizens and to the European Union's future development.
The Convention is an innovation. Issued from the European Counsel of Laeken, in December 2001, it is composed of governmental representatives, of national Parliaments, of the European Parliament and of the European Commission.
Its work is public, its documents are accessible to the public on this site. Moreover, the civil society's organisations can contribute to the debates, particularly by becoming members of the Forum.

1) French legislation

For fifty years, there has been an unjust law in French legislation, contradicting the very principle of the Republic "One and indivisible". It is the law of April 24th, 1951, the so called "Ramarony-Sourbet" law.
Indeed this text has initiated line 3 of article 521-1 of the French Penal Code, as well as articles R 654-1 et R 655-1, introducing tolerance for bull-fight shows "when an uninterrupted local tradition can be invoked". The abusive use of this "tolerance" by the pro bull-fighters, as well as its exaggeratedly extensive interpretation by numerous magistrates have allowed organisers of bull-fight shows to do whatever they like, in spite of the formal condemnation of acts of cruelty and of severe tortures of animals mentioned in a line of the same article of law. This legislative contradiction is an iniquity that a deeply democratic country like ours must abolish, knowing further that a wide majority of French people opposes these barbarian practices (survey in 2000 in Toulouse and in 2001 in Fréjus). Thus it seems to us essential and urgent to see that our MPs examine this case and to work on the abrogation of line 3 of article 521-1 of the Penal Code. We are working on it too and have offered our support.
Since 1951, numerous derogations have allowed the bull-fighters lobby to go on unchecked with their practice on the French territory, so that we have come to the following current situation: the arenas are actually mistaken for slaughterhouses and the bulls are considered to be butchery animals. Can one imagine a more abject end for an animal than its torture just to please an sanguinary crowd?

Furthermore, an regulation of Decembre 20th, 2000, modifying the regulation of June 9th, 2000 on the slaughtering of animals (to be slaughtered) wounded by accident, causes French regulations to be completely illegal within the European Union for it allows the consumption of the meat of the bulls massacred in bull-fights while AFSSA admitted on June 1st 2001 that the tortures suffered by the animal during the bull-fight forward the dissemination of prions in the whole body of the animal. This meat is officially recognised as able to transmit the Kreutzfeld-Jacob disease to man. According to the European directive 00/ 418/CE, the bull's meat from a bull-fight is to be considered improper for consumption (this directive has been applicable since Decembre 31st, 2000). M. Glavany, Minister of Agriculture, has thus taken the liberty to exempt bull-fights from obeying law.

2) Education

In the field of education, a number of teachers, of school directors or of "recteurs d'académie" (one level higher in the hierarchy) have allowed the bull-fight lobby to practise a scandalous propaganda for the youths. What are we to think about toreros or picadors who come proselyting in schools under the cover of an educational project and offer children to come and watch bull-fights (to be able to torture "well" one needs to start at an early age)? An increasing number of teachers contest these practices and address principals and "recteurs", as well as the Ministre of Education. What are we to think about the tax payers' money to be spent for bull-fight schools (in Arles for example) to teach children from poorer families how to torture calves and young bulls?
All this makes it clear that in France, at the beginning of this third millennium, "practical work of torture" is being taught to young adolescents.
In our association, we believe that the various battles against cruelty are not antagonistic but complementary. More over, is death should be is unavoidable, on the other hand cruelty and suffering inflicted for greed and entertainment are not so. Promoters of bull-fights would like the torture of bulls and horses be awarded at the peak of art and culture, supported by law, money, and--much too often--the media.

3) Financial aspects

Within the frame of ferias, bull-fights are financed by municipal budgets. Even in Nîmes, the most frequented arena in France, the bull races, in deficit, are financed by the tax-payers. One can imagine the extent of the deficit of the minor arenas.
In whole France there are no more than 5000 amateurs of bull-fights. Thus, in order to fill an arena, a feria becomes necessary. This kind of fiesta attracts visitors, sometimes from far away, by offering them numerous entertainments for free, paid for by the tax payers: equestrian shows, street concerts, etc... Without this huge municipal subsidy of a feria, the arenas would remain empty and bull-fights would disappear. On the other hand the does not need bull-fights to thrive and prosper.

4) Frauds

The bull-fight bull is not a "beast of prey" but a domestic animal and herbivorous on top of it. He is not dangerous until he is locked in an arena where he gets hit and wounded to the extent that he is forced to defend himself. The breeders, by genetic selection, produce bulls without danger who attack red material and not men who hold this material. The artificial food "pienso compuesto" produces huge, impressing bulls but far too fat to be really dangerous.
The "afeitado", the best known fraud, consist in sawing its horns. The chemical afeitado consists in giving them drugs that dull them before the bull-fight. The picadors, well protected on their heavy armoured horses, inflict the bulls large and deep wounds against the spine by stabbing them. These paralysing and hemorrhagic wounds disable the animals right from the beginning of the torture session. The examinations by vets reveal that half of the bulls massacred in bull-fights were seriously ill.

5) Bull-fights and the European Union

There are numerous arguments in favour of a total abolition of this barbarious anachronism within the European Union. We have already addressed the illegal side of the bull-fight practices as far as the commercialisation of theses bulls' meat in France is concerned. But as to the future European constitution, it is the ethical side of the problem which is particularly important. We are at the beginning of the third millennium, Europe will soon have 25 members. It is more than time for the Union to make courageous decisions to abolish the very symbol of obscurantism and of "cultural" retreat : bull-fights, which we rather call bull-torture to clarify the problem. For it is torture, that is being inflicted on a sensitive living being who can not do anything but undergo his tantalisers' capriciousness.
The evolution of legislations in the various countries of the European Union is heading for an increasing consideration of the animal's welfare. This is the case in Germany, in the Netherlands, as well as in Sweden: did not Mrs Margareta Winberg, Swedish Ministre of Agriculture, proclaim that "animals are thinking beings with an intrinsic value"? Even in Spain, the population is increasingly opposed to bull-fights and demonstrations against this barbarianism regularly attract several thousands of people. In France, including in the bull-fight cities, over 80% of the population state that bull-fights do not belong to their culture. For the human being to evolve toward a larger respect of their siblings, they must equally respect the whole living world. Did not Marguerite Yourcenar say that the worst executioners, tantalisers and killers have always got trained on animals?

Hence, we plead with the convention to compose a courageous text and with no ambiguities with no exception under the cover of tradition, art or culture.
We hope that this contribution will have helped the convention to understand clearly what bull-fights really are, the current state of French legislation, the evolution of mentalities including in the European regions with a so-called "tradition of bull-fights", and foremost to understand the ethical reasons that render bull-fights unacceptable in a Europe that want to be civilised.

2003 : A representative of CVA, Marie-Françoise Lheureux, met Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (President of the Convention on the future of the European Union)'s secretary.
She intended to address the claims on animals' rights in the European Constitution that is being composed.
She had brought F.L.A.C.'s contribution...
The Animal in the European Constitution

Contribution by F.L.A.C

1
No one can invoke a cultural exception on the European territory to forward the status quo or extension of violent practices and arbitrary discriminations on/of animals, notably for entertainment
2
No one can invoke or allege a cultural exception on the European territory to allow the enrolling of youths in practices undeniably generating serious torture or acts of cruelty towards animals

Animal protection activists hope very much for Europe to support them.
Certain countries of the European Union have already taken legislative measures in order to improve the animals' fortune (regulation on hunt for (p)leasure, ban on battue, ban on force-feeding of palmipedes, ban on the use of wild animals for entertainment, etc. ) It seems that the Europeans (mainly those in the north) evolve towards more respect of the various components of nature. They are aware of the necessity to take animal suffering into consideration and to produce relief.
Nevertheless the " Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe " pays no interest to the fortune of animals except for article III-121.

What is in this article : " When they phrase and implement the EU's policies on agriculture, fishing, transportation, interior market, technological and space R&D, the EU and its member states fully take into consideration the requirements of the animals' welfare, as sensitive beings … " hitherto it could be a noticeable progress. But see how it goes on: "…while respecting the regulations of legislation or administration and the uses of the member states, notably concerning religious rituals, cultural traditions and regional legacy. "
We are forced to notice that exceptions have reappeared and that bull-fights are unfortunately concerned.

So what does all this mean? Quite simply that the animals' martyrdom and particularly the bulls' and horses' of bull-fights is not likely to end. Actually, all cruelty, all barbarianism the animals are victims of (bull-fights, rooster-fights, battues, hunt for (p)leasure, circuses, animal prisons, delphinariums, breeding and capture for fur, vivisection, breedings like in concentration camps, cruel ritual games in certain regions notably of Spain, etc…) will continue as in the past thanks to this " cover ".
The legislators have not had the courage to attack archaic practices inherited from ancient times and that progressively fade away in front of humanism.
The French and the Dutch have largely rejected the Treaty for a European Constitution. We will never know how many votes, whether for NO or for YES, were influenced by the fate that article III-121 of the Constitution imposes on our animal friends. We bet that the voters were far more numerous than one would imagine.
Should there be a re-negotiation, it would be serving up justice for the animal protectors in the EU. Indeed the European associations were completely absent when the texts were being prepared for they did not get consulted. Let us note that they have also remained too passive during the electoral campaign.

So what can be done ? Sure, unite all associations might appear a little utopian, but is this a good reason for not attempting a very ambitious operation in order to put all our joint weight in the discussions of texts and to make them evolve towards more respect for animals? All associations and foundations, from the smallest to the largest ones, need to get mobilised therefore, because, let us not be mistaken, the NO got votes from the tantalisers who fight to keep their privileges as well as from the protectors who consider the animals to be insufficiently protected by the Constitution.

It is almost sure that the animal-exploiters of every kind, among which the bull-fighter, are going to undertake everything necessary to have their wishes validated, and if there is nothing to oppose them, they are likely to win, for sure. Thus it is imperative for us to act, and soon ! While waiting for a hypothetical very ambitious undertaking each of us must sign and have other sign the petition of C.V.A la pétition du C.V.A. (Comité de Vigilance Active pour le bien-être animal) car for 1 Million clearly identified signatures are required from various EU countries for a proposal to be examined.
Proposal from F.L.A.C.'s
Commission for Ethics and History

1 ARTICLE III-121 :
For the abolishionists that we are it is particularly difficult to amend a text like this article:
Accordingly, claiming that one would " make allowance to the animal's needs for welfare " in these matters is but a perfect utopia, for we are actually faced with a fundamental contradiction.
The legislator is to take minimally into consideration the claims of animal welfare activists, who, little by little carry through an evolution of consciences.
Thus he is forced to instil awkwardly a dose of "animal welfare" into his text, knowing perfectly well that the topics mentioned above are alas a source of immeasurable distress for the concerned animal world!
Religious rites, cultural traditions, regional heritage have nothing to do with the above mentioned topics. Hence they are to be treated separately.

As a result :
We propose for article III - 121 to be completely redesigned in order to enable the signatories of the petition to be nearly coherent.
-a) The exigence of the animals' welfare as sensitive beings are imperatively made allowance to in the political implementation of the use of animals in the following areas: agriculture, fishing, transportation, home market, research, technological and space development.
-b) Also, practices that are not regulated by paragraph -a) above but that also use animals like certain religious rites, certain cultural traditions, certain regional heritages shall totally respect animal welfare in the meantime until their final abolition.

2 ARTICLE III-280
We are aware of the fact that certain European cultures are based on the use of animals, but nothing in this text refers to it directly. For the reader not to get the impression of a parasitic or expletive amendment, it needs to be specified: hence the following proposal: "Item 6 : In the particular case of European cultures that use animals the above mentioned regulations shall imperatively make allowance to the animals' welfare as sensitive beings”

The EU and animal welfare: political objectives

In a "Protocol on animals' protection and welfare" the Amsterdam treaty, which has been effective since May 1999, has established new fundamental rules for the EU's policy on animal welfare. It recognises officially that animals are sensitive beings and imposes on the European institutions to make full allowance to the exigences of the animals' welfare in the phrasing and implementation of the Union's legislation.

The protocol also defines the limits of the Union's competence in legislative matters.

Acts of cruelty on animals, abuses, animals' participations to competitions, exhibitions, cultural or sports demonstrations like bull-fights, dog-fights and dog races constitute examples of de questions that remain exclusively in the range of competence of the national governments.

Project MINOTAURUS

This project aiming at promoting the "encierros" (bulls let "free" in the streets where they are abused by young people, mostly under the influence of alcohol) will not receive European subsidies.

Indeed, the people responsible at the Interreg Trois Commission have decided so. This commission is to promote regional culture and economy of the countries of the EU.

The Minotaurus project, which-under the cover of culture-aimed at promoting bull-fights, had been particularly controverted and denounced not only by Animal Welfare but equally by the very large majority of European citizens.

(Source : The New Bull Tribune/ ADDA Barcelona - N° 18 - 4th quarter 2003

European Elections
June 13th, 2004
 Meetings : On May 25th, 2004 the Comité FLAC Perpignan met with Gérard Onesta, vice-president of the European Parliament (Ecologist), in order to ask him to have a European recommendation regulation against bull-fights and, more generally, a more favorable approach to all animal welfare topics.

Elections : as a general rule bull-fight promoters are afraid of the European Union. They hope that this topic will never be on the agenda, for they are afraid that the "southern cultures" might be diluted in a widened Europe.

Reminder of the way the EU works : It is the so-called "subsidiarity" principle, advising to have decisions made as closely as possible to the citizens when several institutional authorities could solve the problem.
Several lists: (of course this is a non-exhaustive list). First of all the hardest and purest defenders of "traditions": "La France en tête (France at the top)", with Charles Pasqua who intends to defend "our cultures and traditions in front of uniformisation". A picture of a bull in a breed illustrates his list !
The CPNT list (hunt, fishing, nature and tradition) which, as its name says it, defends traditions !
"Changeons l'Europe (Let's change Europe)" with Philippe de Villiers who pleads for a Europe of differences, respectful of our identities and our liberties (and who organises gladiators in Puy du Fou !)
"L'Europe avec l'accent (Europe with an accent)" a UMP list which defends the "regional traditions ". This requires questioning when one knows that Jean-Paul Fournier, the mayor of Nîmes has a good position in this list !

In a different train of thought: les Verts (the ecologists) want to protect the "multiplicity of cultures". OK but ...! With a certain Noël Mamère at the head of this list we have reasonably good reasons to be afraid !
The list of the socialist Party mentions a Europe of various people and cultures. Sounds like a junk room.
And last but not least: "la France d'en Bas", one representative of which, Jean-Pierre Garrigues, has announced openly that he pleads for the final abolition of bull-fights .