Battle lines drawn?
Victorino Martín reads out the Declaration (Image from aplausos.es)
One of the frustrating aspects of the constant tussle with authorities and animal rights activists over the existence of bullfighting is that the taurinos always appear to be on the back foot, reacting to events rather than proselytising their viewpoint.
But, on December 12, la Fundación Toro de Lidia (represented by Victorino Martín García) and the UCTL joined la Real Federación Española de Caza, la Asociación Agraria de Jóvenes Agricultores, la Alianza Rural, sports bodies involving animals and the 11 organisations that make up la Federación de Razas Cárnicas de Cantabria in launching the Santander Declaration against Animalism.
The Declaration is as follows:
The identities of a people are created from a set of beliefs, traditions, shared history, cultural manifestations or economic activities.
Our Western culture has placed the human being at the centre of those elements that forge identity, in a respectful balance with animals and nature, a relationship that has shaped a relevant part of our ecosystems, economy, culture, gastronomy or traditions.
However, in recent times, an animalist ideology has advanced that tries to forcibly alter our entire rich legacy of heritage and identity, presenting a pretended equality between animals and humans. And it tries to impose a new and even more radical ideology, called antispeciesism, which promotes an extravagant equivalence between animals and humans, reducing both to the category of "sentient beings", thereby eliminating the ethical and conscious dimension of human beings, thus degrading people by not recognizing the specific aspects that make them unique beings endowed with an undeniable dignity.
Animalism and antispeciesism are ideologies that do not seek the best for animals, an aspiration to which we are all committed, but rather to put them on an equal footing with human beings, something contrary to the nature of both and their differing self-regard.
The implantation of these ideologies would have catastrophic results, as it would mean the end of our cultural identity, in addition to condemning any of the countless activities related in some way to animals.
For all of the above, and in the face of the advance of animalist and antispeciesist ideology, we declare:
• That the culture and identity of a people are shaped by its people without external impositions, with the only limit being human rights and fundamental freedoms, in accordance with the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
• That we oppose animalist and antispeciesist ideologies and their attempts to standardize thought, trying to impose a new cultural, economic and social reality.
• That we urge the authorities to legislate in favour of the preservation of the plurality of traditions, cultural and economic elements and ecosystems organized around our relationship with animals.
Whether this Declaration will be sufficient to change people’s minds about bullfighting’s right to exist remains to be seen. It provides a counter-argument to the proponents of antispeciesism - on the extreme of the animal rights movement - but it does not address the views of those people who simply prefer not to see pain inflicted on animals, let alone as part of a public entertainment.
Bullfighting and pain
The matter of bullfighting and pain is shortly to be considered in Mexico’s courts, where recent discussions on whether bullfighting should be prohibited (a judge’s decision to ban bullfights in Plaza México has just been overturned) are not entirely resolved.
José Carlos Arévalo, former editor of 6Toros6, addresses the issue in a recent artlcle on his blog. In this, he argues that bullfighting implements - the divisa, puya and the banderillas - do not punish toros bravos, but rather “encourage their bravery and act as pain palliatives and stress regulators. When popular wisdom dictated that the fighting bull does not suffer, otherwise it would flee instead of charge, it was absolutely right.”
To back up his argument, he refers to the findings of the biologist Fernando Gil Cabrera and the veterinarian expert Julio Fernández Sanz relating to the toro bravo’s unique neuroendocrine system: “This hormonal mechanism is set in motion as a result of the first skin puncture that the bull receives from the divisa’s harpoon before its entry into the ring. This puncture generates a multiple neurotransmitter reaction that acts on the place where the incision has occurred, with the result of alleviating the animal’s stress and encouraging its ease in the unknown setting to which it has just found itself. In fact, it is in the skin, not in the muscle, that the bull's adaptive process to fighting is activated.
“For example, in the suerte de varas, the action of cortisol, which stimulates its aggressiveness, and its high level of dopamine, which emboldens and disinhibits it, are combined with the action of a powerful beta-endorphin, which neutralizes the pain caused by the puyazo with a force 200 times greater than morphine. This neural mechanism explains why bravery is reactivated from the first puyazo, without pain (which is quickly neutralized) deterring the bull’s subsequent attacks. It is true that the bull is tempered in the first tercio, not by the action of the well-placed puya, but by the enormous expenditure of energy it makes when it pushes against the horse and also by charging at the capotes with its head lowered, which inhibits its breathing.” These are the conditions, Arévalo states, that stimulate bravery, neutralize pain and temper the onslaught of the fighting bull.
“In addition […],” Arévalo continues, “the next tercio restores the bull's energy balance by making it gallop with its head held high, which allows it to recover by breathing, oxygenating its blood and revitalizing its muscular strength, while its attacks on the bullfighter’s cape are tempered again […] ‘Avivadoras’ are the toreros' apt description of the banderillas, bullfighting tools that, like the puya, do not punish the bull, but modulate its natural aggressive behaviour so that it fulfils the four states that bullfighting demands of it: levantado at the start, tempered after the suerte de varas, balanced after the tercio de banderillas and ready to charge without any physical hindrance in the muleta.”
Political risks
Arévalo pleads for the full scientific evidence (summarised in his article) to be placed before the Tribunal Constitucional de México on January 5 when it is due to rule as to whether toros bravos are mistreated in bullfights. For the political pressures on bullfighting continue. In Mexico, in addition to this court hearing, the country’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has recently countenanced the idea of a national referendum on bullfighting’s future. In Spain, the new Culture Minister and antitaurino Ernest Urtasun may be considering a similar measure, having said, “I believe there is a majority of Spanish society that doesn’t agree with animal torture, and from this basis, the decisions I make [on bullfighting], I can guarantee, will be based on dialogue and listening to everyone.”
But there are risks for politicians in taking action in such areas, as well as for followers and those who earn their living from activities involving animals. In Britain, The Guardian has recently revealed that the Blair Labour Government’s decision to ban foxhunting in 2004 followed on a £1m donation to the Labour Party from the founder of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, but that senior Labour figures believe the ban created a rift between the Party and rural voters that has lasted a generation; Labour officials now say that the Party’s next election manifesto will not include the promise of any major animal rights legislation as this might further alienate voters in rural communities.