Values Inverted between Man & Animals

Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Today we will continue the analysis of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of the Rights of Animals here and here). In it, we find more considerations:

Considering that genocides are perpetrated by man against animals or are threatened to be perpetrated…

The Armenian genocide made by Muslim Turks would now be equivalent to the slaughter of whales

Genocide means the deliberate killing of a human group or nation. Hitler carried out genocide against the Jews, or at least he pretended to do so. Homicide is the assassination of a single man; genocide is the assassination of a whole genre (genus in Latin = genre).

UNESCO’s use of this term to refer to the killing of animals is a way to present man as an assassin who threatens entire genres of animals. You can see that this law is not made to protect animals, but rather is against man. Man starts to play the role of a great assassin who needs to be restrained.

Considering that respect for animals is related to respect of men for one another…

This repeats the same nonsense.

Considering that educational authorities must teach citizens from childhood to observe, understand, respect and love animals, it is hereby proclaimed:

This phrase has some truth in it. We should teach children to understand, observe, respect and like animals as creatures made by God. This makes sense for a certain kind of animals, but not all of them.

Let us imagine a man who is swimming in the ocean and meets an octopus. According to this recommendation to show respect for all animals, he should consider the octopus as a brother and approach it with joy and friendship. Before he ends this ritual of respect, however, he is caught by the octopus and strangled in its tentacles.

After these presuppositions, in the name of all nations, UNESCO proclaims the following in official Articles:

First, all animals are born equal in life and have the same right to existence.

We see that man is considered as just one species among the animals. So, the cat has the same right to life as the child who plays with it. If this principle is true, then no one has the right to kill a chicken. Every chicken market becomes a sort of Dachau or Auschwitz.

This Dutch housewife hanging up her slaughtered rooster would be guilty of murder

Also every restaurant becomes a place of phenomenal injustice because animals are eaten there.

I call your attention to this phrase: All animals are born equal in life. Why equal in life? This implies there is no God. To say the all have the same rights in life means that all have the same degree of life. The life of one is worth as much as the life of the other. This is an implicit denial of God and an obvious manifestation of atheism. This U.N. Declaration is atheistic. Second, man as an animal species can neither exterminate other animals nor exploit them violating this right.

This means that if a man rides a horse, he is abusing the horse; if he locks a bird in a cage, he is incarcerating the bird.

This is against Catholic doctrine, because man was given the intelligence to capture a bird, put it in a cage and enjoy its singing. The bird’s capacity to sing was given to it by God for man to hear and enjoy. This is because man is the center of Creation, the king of Creation, and everything below him was created for him.

The Church would not be the Church of God if she would allow man to enjoy the singing of birds and to ride horses and these actions were unjust. God, throughout the whole of History, continued to communicate with His Saints no matter how many horses they rode, animals they killed to eat or birds they caught.

However, He would immediately break His communication with them if they killed a child, abused a man or unjustly imprisoned a person. Since God and the Catholic Church permitted these actions, they are implicitly condemned as erroneous by this UNESCO Declaration.

This Declaration ultimately takes a position that condemns all the sacrifices of animals that God asked for in the Old Testament. Again, it indirectly declares that our God is not the true God.

Third, every animal has the right to the attention, care and protection of men.

According to this statement, the animal has a right, which means that the law must punish anyone who disrespects it. A right is something that, when it is denied, the law punishes those who do not respect it.

The angel would have been wrong to command Tobias to catch and kill the fish

So, the animal has the right to the attention and protection of men. Now then, we men lack the resources to care for and protect all our brother men, yet now we are required to show these concerns for animals? This is insanity! It represents a fall for mankind to accept a Declaration like this! It is an insult to man to affirm he is equal to animals; it is an insult to the Man-God, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Every animal belonging to a wild species has the right to live freely in its own natural environment and has the right to reproduce.

This means that we cannot remove an animal from his forest, be it to kill it or for any other purpose. We cannot fish because the fish has the right to its aquatic environment; we cannot hunt a duck flying in the sky. All these animals live for themselves, not to serve man.

I do not know if you comprehend the fantastic egalitarianism of this Declaration and the complete change it represents for the way of living of all men. Notwithstanding, the U.N. just officially proclaimed these revolting articles and no government protested.

Interestingly, the UNESCO declares that the animals have the right to reproduce, yet the U.N. – its mother organization – promotes abortion among men. For the U.N. the child in the womb has no right to life; however, it proclaims that the animal has this right. It is an absurd inversion of values.

To be continued