Zimpapers Logo

Cecil the Lion

Barbara Ellen Correspondent
This is how many people “do” animal welfare: dab the eyes, blow the nose, quietly return to a blinkered world of battery eggs and cheap farmed leather. As a vegetarian animal lover, I would like to see something positive in the uproar over the killing of Cecil the Lion, shot with a crossbow bolt by

an American dentist for hunting thrills in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park.

However, I’m not sure how I feel about what appears to be hordes of self-glorifying mourners wailing over the fate of one beautiful animal.

Is this really about Cecil or about what could be termed selective compassion — one animal’s death chosen to illustrate just how kind, sensitive and wonderful humans can be? Let’s be clear, I’m disgusted by this killing. What an inadequate, loser-subspecies hunters must be. However, this goes beyond hunters, to the mawkish, censorious droves mourning celebrity lion Cecil, seemingly above all other screwed-over animals.

Are most of these people aware — do they even care — that there are innumerable incidents of perfectly legal animal cruelty, systemic exploitation and botched slaughter going on all the time?

Or doesn’t that count because the animals involved aren’t much loved, or Oxbridge-researched, with big fluffy manes that remind you of Simba’s dad in The Lion King?

Not so long ago, the RSPCA reported that cruelty to animals in Britain was becoming more vicious and inventive – one dog was shot with a crossbow bolt, just like Cecil.

Elsewhere, the food and leather industries are just two zones for ongoing industrial-level abuse of animals. Where are the anguished grieving hordes — where are the Cecil sobbers — when you need them?

In another story last week, Jane Birkin said that she did not want Hermès to name its Birkin “Croco” bags after her any longer, because of the cruelty involved in their production. A sincere bravo to Ms Birkin, but what about the leather Birkin bags? Or are animals treated so much better in abattoirs than crocodiles being skinned?

It has long perplexed me: who makes these decisions about which animals are beautiful or valued enough to be afforded dignity in life and death? In some ways, my attitude could be viewed as unreasonable, militant (or just bloody typical of a vegetarian). A more forgiving take would be that some people are just more drawn to exotic wildlife and universal grief for Cecil could aid conservation; so it’s good that lots of people cared (better than no one caring).

Where are the anguished grieving hordes — the Cecil-huggers — when you need them?

Fair enough, and obviously some people are genuine — I noticed Ricky Gervais joining in, but he has form for sticking up for animals.

With too many others, it seemed to be a classic case of people fixating on one element of animal abuse or, in this case, one animal, not because of animals, but because displaying how much they care — the sheer intoxication of caring — makes them look and feel good, not to mention virtuous and active. Delusional codswallop.

While I’m sad about Cecil, I’m even sadder that this is how many people “do” animal welfare: singly, from afar, a sprinkle of stardust, much noise and bluster, job done, dab the eyes, blow the nose, quietly return to a blinkered world of battery eggs, hunting ban repeals and cheap farmed leather.

While I agree with the people noisily mourning Cecil, I’m not impressed by what appears in many cases to be self-serving, monocular, ultimately pointless dramatics. He and other animals deserve more than easy tears. — The Guardian.