Skip to main content

Greens Top, Lib Dems Poor on Animal Protection in Europe

http://www.vote4animals.org.uk/euroelection2009.htm

Green Party MEPs Jean Lambert and Caroline Lucas scored top marks for their voting record on animal issues in Europe in an analysis by PAD Director Dr Dan Lyons.

The Green MEPs both got a perfect score of +15 from the award-winning political analyst, while Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP for the Eastern Region came bottom with a paltry -15...the lowest score possible.

The UK Greens are the only party which has a policy called 'animal rights'. Both Green MEPs, Caroline Lucas in South East England and Jean Lambert in London, are staunch and consistent defenders of animals with a 100% positive record on this vote, both scoring +15. Dr Lucas has been especially active for animals and helps to table pro-animal laws. The Green group is now an influential force in the European Parliament, and UK Greens can rally their colleagues to help make a major difference for animals. The Euro manifesto includes a specific animal protection section and promises to work for a ban on animal experiments.

Andrew Duff, MEP for the Eastern region of England, earned his rather evil minus 15 due to his cosy relationship with the animal testing industry. As a whole the Lib Dems are a little inconsistent and unreliable on animal welfare issues and their Euro manifesto doesn't mention animals at all.

The Greens have an excellent chance of winning seats in Eastern England, and with the latest polls showing the Greens only 2 points behind the Lib Dems, a vote for the Green Party would be a huge vote for animal rights and a massive one against the animal testing industry and their big supporter, Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff.

Comments

Joe Otten said…
Valuing human life demands being "inconsistent" on animal rights. You may wish it were otherwise, but it's not. Yes, it is evil to make the wrong call on this one.
2 June 2009 at 15:23
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more