After reading the editorial in the May 31 edition (“Fireworks for the thousands”), I came to the conclusion that the editor is for the fireworks, and that he criticizes those people against the fireworks who are “trying to impose their will on everyone else.”
The question of the fireworks is a delicate one, indeed. Should the excitement of thousands of people be more important than the well-being of thousands of animals, if not hundreds of thousands of them? Does the editor know that the author of the petition that promotes the fireworks has a link to another petition on her Facebook page promoting the ban of the Yulin Dog Festival in China? I understand that the two levels of animal cruelty are quite different (one is killing dogs for their meat, and the other one is upsetting them with loud bangs), but both sentiments against animal cruelty are based on the same fundamental premise: compassion for canines (which is stated in the petition against the Yulin Festival).
My question is: “How can a person who takes action to ban a festival out of compassion for canines also take action to bring back an event that upset many canines?” Where is the logic there? The only logic I can see is the following: “I feel compassion for the canines and will fight to protect their well being … as long as it doesn’t stop me from enjoying my excitement, in which case I will fight to keep enjoying my excitement at the expense of the canines.” Does that make sense to you?
Marc Theriault, Sechelt