Animal Rights Africa tracht via rechter het doden met de hand van stier tijdens festival in Nongoma te voorkomen

Mediation attempt snub by Zulu king means

Ukweshwama court action continues

25-11-2009 Animal Rights Africa


The legal action launched by Animal Rights Africa (ARA) in the Pietermaritzburg High Court yesterday in an attempt to obtain an interim interdict to halt the bare-handed killing of a bull at the Zulu royal kraal in Nongoma during this year’s annual Festival of the First Fruits, was adjourned to Tuesday next week (1st December) to give the respondents sufficient time to file opposing affidavits defending the killing of the bull.

In a late development yesterday, after the Judge’s decision to adjourn proceedings, commissioners from the Government appointed Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities in South Africa facilitated and mediated a meeting between representatives of ARA and the respondents in the matter. ARA spokesperson Steve Smit said that unfortunately, in spite of the committed efforts of commission CEO, Rev Wesley Mabuza, and commissioner Pat Mkhize to convene a meeting that would be representative of all parties (both Applicants and Respondents) only the KZN Premier was represented on the Respondents side in the meeting which took place in the Premier’s Durban office.

“We agreed to the meeting in the hope of reaching some kind of amicable agreement that would result in the suspension of the bull-killing event at the this year’s Nongoma festival”, said ARA’s Steve Smit. “Sadly, it appears that the King remains unwilling to enter into any dialogue or mediation and is clearly not prepared to support the efforts of the Commission. The Mediation attempt therefore failed.”

ARA remains committed to our sincere, animal rights-based belief that the manner in which the bull is killed during the festival is both ethically indefensible and illegal. Smit said that ARA was disappointed that the Respondents (and others, including the Commission) had not reacted to ARA’s earlier attempts to seek dialogue on the matter. “We feel that it is important that the Respondents understand that it is our mission as an animal rights organization to speak and act on behalf of the voiceless animals who are victims of human use and exploitation, wherever and however this might occur, and that our decision to take this matter to the High Court really was a last resort to save the bull who, according to eye-witness accounts, dies a cruel and protracted death. Simply put, we are asking for compassion and respect for a sentient being and we are acting in the interests of an animal who will die in a manner which contravenes aspects of the Animal Protection Act, the National Environmental Management Act, and the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution, amongst others.”

“At this late stage we feel that with both parties believing so strongly in their arguments contained in affidavits supporting their beliefs and actions in this matter, we will rely on the judge to decide who is right and who is wrong,” said Smit. “This really is democracy in action and all South Africans, both supporters and opponents of ARA’s stance in this matter, should welcome, and be proud of, the fact that we live in a country where issues such as this can be openly debated and, if necessary, tested in a court of law.”

(Bron: http://aww.animalrightsafrica.org/)