There has been a lot of press about the televised killing and eating of a rat on a British reality show filmed in the Australian bush; and the two people involved are potentially facing up to three years in prison.
This is interesting. Now, could someone please explain to me why someone can be imprisoned for up to three years for killing and eating a rat, but there is no penalty whatsoever for anyone involved in the slaughter of over 10 billion animals a year in the US alone? I simply just don’t get it, am I missing something?
Is it just because it was done live on TV, is that the problem? If that is the case, let’s get the TV cameras down to the local slaughterhouse and film what goes on there. Or would that lack “entertainment value”?
The Australian animal welfare organization, the RSPCA, commented, “The concern is this was done purely for the cameras.” So if it is done for “entertainment” it is bad, but when people have guests over and “entertain” them by feeding them a “nice” meal of slaughtered cow, chicken or sheep, i.e. meat, that is just fine?
The online comments on this story run about 99% feeling the charges are outlandish. As one said, “[rats taste] just like Kentucky Fried Chicken”. Someone else asked, “Where do you draw the line? Scorpions? Trees?”.
Exactly! They were apparently given kangaroo testicles, crocodile feet and tongues, possum and other animal parts in previous episodes and no one said anything, that was fine. Another web commenter brought a good point: “It looks like they're being charged not for killing a rat and eating it, but because they killed it on television…They might as well start bringing up cooking shows on charges for cooking meat”. And another: “But it still comes down to the question of whether it was done for entertainment or whether it was done to provide food. Animals are killed for cookery shows all the time, I can't see the difference. Unless the RSPCA are going to take on all the Australian cookery shows, then I don't see how they can win this.”.
Thanks for reading.