Letter: Rights of woodlice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Paul Rees (letter, 17 July) accuses me of what might be called "speciesism", which he equates with racism and homophobia, because I believe that human rights take precedence over the so-called "rights" of animals.
Society condones the exploitation of animals for recreational meat-eating, companionship and so forth. Within this tradition, we can argue about acceptable standards of animal welfare, but when it comes to animal rights, then Mr Rees's logic is impeccable - there can be no compromise.
So, will the pet-owning public give up their animal "slaves"? I think not. Mainstream society is inherently speciesist. This is just as well, because I would like to accord greater rights to my child than to a woodlouse without being branded a racist.
ALASDAIR MITCHELL
Stocksfield, Northumberland
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments