Hennix

För någon vecka sedan anslöt jag mig till en Facebook-grupp som vill förbjuda djurförsök. Jag lämnade en kort kommentar om att Adolf Hitler och NSDAP förbjöd vivisektion, plågsamma djurförsök.

(Som bekant var Hitler en mycket stor djurvän., Han ville inte att något djur skulle dö för att han skulle få mat och var därför vegetarian. Inte ens buljong ville han dricka, utan kallade det för "likvatten". Halal- och kosherslakt samt all annan form av djurplågeri var strängeligen förbjudet under Tredje Riket. Djurplågare skickades till koncentrationsläger för omskolning. Direkt efter det nationalsocialistiska Tyskland fall tilläts plågsamma djurförsök och djurplågeri sågs inte som något allvarligt brott. Omtänksamheten mot djur var helt olika i Tredje Riket och det demokratiska Tyskland.)

När jag påpekade detta på facebook-sidan så fick jag ett upprört svar. Det var inte första gången som djurvänner reagerade på detta sätt. Djurvänner som är etablissemangets försvarare vägrar att acceptera att Adolf Hitler gjorde något bra. Som bålgetingar går dessa djurvänner till angrepp och undervisar mig om att Hitler t ex åt så mycket kött att han blev sjuk, att plågsamma djurförsök visst förekom och att djurskyddslagen var bara en bluff för att lura tyska folket. Som "bevis" hänvisar man till politiskt korrekta skribenters tyckande, speciellt judiska sådana (t ex Boria Sax och Fredrik Malm). Det mest häpnadsväckande jag läst är just av folkpartisten/riksdagsmannen Malm, som anser att halal-och kosherslakt utan bedövning bör tillåtas eftersom Adolf Hitler förbjöd dessa slaktmetoder. Eftersom Hitler var emot kosher och halal så måste dessa slaktmetoder vara bra, menar Fredrik Malm i sin riksdagsmotion nr 2007/08:MJ381.

Alla dessa tyckare, verklighetsförfalskare och virrhjärnor är beklagansvärda. De har inte så pass mycket förstånd att de kan acceptera fakta eller förstå att även personer och ideologier de avskyr faktiskt kan ha uträttat bra saker också.

Här följer bl a Tredje Rikets djurskyddslag:






NAZI GERMANY AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

1933 Law on Animal Protection

(Signed into law, 11/24/1933)

Cruelty to Animals Measures for the Protection of Animals Experiments on Living Animals

Provisions for Punishment Conclusion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The government has resolved on the following law, which is hereby made known:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section I

Cruelty to Animals

#1

(1) It is forbidden to unnecessarily torment or roughly mishandle an animal.
(2) One torments an animal when one repeatedly or continuously causes appreciable pain or suffering; the torment is unnecessary in so far as it does not serve any rational, justifiable purpose. One mishandles an animal when one causes it appreciable pain; mishandling is rough when it corresponds to an unfeeling state of mind.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II

Measures for the Protection of Animals

#2

It is forbidden:

1. to so neglect an animal in one's ownership, care or accommodation that it thereby experiences appreciable pain or appreciable damage;
2. to use an animal unnecessarily for what clearly exceeds its powers or causes it appreciable pain, or which it-in consequence of its condition-is obviously not capable of;
3. to use and animal for demonstrations, film-making, spectacles, or other public events to the extent that these events cause the animal appreciable pain or appreciable damage to health;
4. to use a fragile, ill, overworked or old animal for which further life is a torment for any other purpose than to cause or procure a rapid, painless death;
5. to put out one's domestic animal for the purpose of getting rid of it;
6. to set or test the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals;
7. to shorten the ears or the tail of a dog over two weeks old. This is allowed if it is done with anesthesia;
8. to shorten the tail of a horse. This is allowed if it is to remedy a defect or illness of the tail and is done by a veterinarian and under anesthesia;
9. to perform a painful operation on an animal in an unprofessional manner or without anesthesia, or if anesthesia in a particular case is impossible according to veterinary standards;
10. to kill an animal on a farm for fur otherwise than with anesthesia or in a way that is, in any case, painless;
11. to force-feed fowl;
12. to tear out or separate the thighs of living frogs.

#3

The importation of horses with shortened tails is forbidden. The minister of the Interior can make exceptions if special circumstances warrant it.

#4

The temporary use of hoofed animals as carriers in the mines is only permitted with the permission of the responsible authorities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section III

Experiments on Living Animals

#5

It is forbidden to operate on or handle living animals in ways that may cause appreciable pain or damage for the purpose of experiments, to the extent the provisions of #6 through #8 do not mandate otherwise.

#6

(1) The minister of the Interior can at the proposal of the responsible government or local authorities confer permission on certain scientifically led institutes or laboratories to undertake scientific experiments on living animals, when the director of the experiment has sufficient professional education and reliability, sufficient facilities for the undertaking of animal experiments are available, and guarantee for the care and maintenance of the animals for experiment has been made.
(2) The minister of the Interior can delegate the granting of permission to others among the highest officials of the government.
(3) Permission may be withdrawn without compensation at any time.

#7

In carrying out experiments on animals (#5), the following provisions are to be observed:

1. The experiments may only be carried out under the complete authority of the scientific director or of a representative that has been specifically appointed by the scientific director.
2. The experiments may only be carried out by someone who has previously received scientific education or under the direction of such a person, and when every pain is avoided in so far as that is compatible with the goal of the experiment.
3. Experiments for research may only be undertaken when a specific result is expected that has not been previously confirmed by science or if the experi­ments help to answer previously unsolved problems.
4. The experiments are only to be undertaken under anesthesia, provided the judgment of the scientific director does not categorically exclude this or if the pain connected with the operation is outweighed by the damage to the con­dition of the experimental animals as a result of anesthesia.
Nothing more severe than a difficult operation or painful but unbloody experiment may be carried out on such an unanesthetized animal.
Animals that suffer appreciable pain after the completion of such a difficult experiment, especially involving an operation, are, in so far as this is, in the judgment of the scientific director, compatible with the goal of the experiment, immediately to be put to death.
5. Experiments on horses, dogs, cats, and apes can only be carried out when the intended goal may not be achieved through experiments on other animals.
6. No more animals may be used than are necessary to-resolve the associated question.
7. Animal experiments for pedagogical purposes are only permitted when other educational tools such as pictures, models, taxonomy, and film are not suf­ficient.
8. Records are to be kept of the sort of animal used, the purpose, the procedure, and the result of the experiment.

#8

Experiments on animals for judicial purposes as well as inoculations and taking of blood from living animals for the purpose of diagnosing illness of people or animals, or for obtainment of serums or inoculations according to procedures that have already been tried or are recognized by the state, are not subject to provisions #5 through #7. These animals, however, are also to be killed pain­lessly if they suffer appreciable pain and if it is compatible with the goals of the experiment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section IV

Provisions for Punishment

#9

(1) Whoever unnecessarily torments or roughly mishandles an animal will be punished by up to two years in prison, with a fine, or with both these penalties.
(2) Whoever, apart from the case in (1), undertakes an experiment on living animals (# S) without the required permission will be punished by imprisonment of up to six months, with a fine, or with both of these penalties.
(3) A fine of up to five hundred thousand marks or imprisonment will, apart from the punishment mandated in (1) and (2), be the punishment for whomever intentionally or through negligence.
1. violates prohibition #2 though #4;
2. acts against regulation #7;
3.violates guidelines enacted by the Ministry of the Interior or by a provincial government according to #14;
4. neglects to prevent children or other persons that are under his/her supervision or belong to his/her household from violating the provisions of this law.

#10

(1) In addition to the punishments in #9 for an intentional violation of the law, an animal belonging to the condemned may be confiscated or killed. Instead of confiscation it may be ordered that the animal be sheltered and fed for up to nine months at the cost of the guilty party.
(2) If no specific person can be identified or condemned, the confiscation or killing of an animal may be undertaken in any case when the other prerequisites are present.

#11

(1) If someone is repeatedly guilty of intentionally violating the provisions that are punishable according to #9 the local authorities that are responsible can prohibit that person from keeping certain animals or from business involving them either for a specified period or permanently.
(2) After a year has passed since the imposition of the punishment the re­sponsible local authorities may rescind their decision.
(3) An animal subject to appreciable negligence in provision, care, or shelter may be taken away from the owner by the responsible local authority and ac­commodated elsewhere until there is a guarantee that the animal will be cared for in a manner above reproach. The cost of this accommodation shall be paid by the guilty party.

#12

If in a judicial process it appears doubtful whether an act violates a prohibition of #1, (1) or (2), a veterinarian shall be summoned as early in the process as possible and, in so far as it concerns a farm, an agricultural official of the gov­ernment shall be heard.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section V

Conclusion

#13

Anesthesia as it is understood in this law means all procedures that lead to general painlessness or eliminate localized pain.

#14

The Minister of the Interior can issue judicial and administrative decrees for the completion and enforcement of this law. In so far as the Minister of the Interior does not make use of this power, local governments can make the necessary decree for implementation.

#15

This law becomes binding on February 1, 1934 with the exception of #2, (8) and #3, (11), for which the Minister of the Interior must see the time of imple­mentation in consultation with the Minister of Food and Agriculture.


The laws #1456 and #360, (13) of the law of May 30, 1908 remain unchanged.



Berlin, November 24, 1933

Signed:
Adolf Hitler
Chancellor



Nazityskland hade strikta djurskyddslagar där det var förbjudet att låsa in djur i burar, visa upp djur offentligt som i exempelvis circusar, frakta djur i motordrivna fordon. Att koka skaldjur levande förbjöds och man slog ned mot tjuvjakt hårdare och med strikare regler. Att använda levande mask som bete vid fiske förbjöds. Djurtester totalförbjöds och Göring sade att "den som tror att han fortfarande kan behandla djur som materiell egendom ska sättas i koncentrationsläger"

Följande är översatt med googles översättningsmaskin:

År 1932 föreslog Nationalsocialistiska Tyska Arbetarpartiet NSDAP (Nazisterna) ett förbud mot vivisektion . In early 1933, representatives of the Nazi party to the Prussian parliament held a meeting to enact this ban. I början av 1933 samlades representanter för den nazistiska part i preussiska parlamentet ett möte att anta detta förbud. On April 21, 1933, almost immediately after the Nazis came to power, the parliament started to pass laws for the regulation of animal slaughter. [ 7 ] On April 21, a law was passed on the slaughter of animals. Den 21 april 1933, nästan omedelbart efter det att nazisterna kom till makten, parlamentet började att stifta lagar för reglering av djurslakt. [7] Den 21 april lag en vidare slakt av djur. On April 24, Order of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior was enacted regarding the slaughter of poikilotherms . [ 9 ] Nazi Germany was the first nation to ban vivisection. [ 10 ] A law imposing total ban on vivisection was enacted in August 16, 1933, by Hermann Göring as the prime minister of Prussia . [ 11 ] He announced to end the "unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments" and told that those who "still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property" will be sent to concentration camps . [ 7 ] On August 28, 1933, Göring announced in a radio broadcast: [ 12 ] Den 24 april beslut av den preussiska inrikesministeriet antogs om slakt av poikilotherms . [9] nazistiska Tyskland var den första nationen att förbjuda vivisektion. [10] En lag om införande av totalförbud mot vivisektion antogs i augusti 16, 1933 , av Hermann Göring som premiärminister Preussen . [11] Han meddelade att avsluta "outhärdlig tortyr och lidande i djurförsök" och berättade att de som "fortfarande tror att de kan fortsätta att behandla djur som livlösa egendom" kommer att sändas till koncentrationslägren . [7] Den 28 augusti 1933, Göring tillkännagavs i en radiosändning: [12]

An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself.... En absolut och permanent förbud mot vivisektion är inte bara en nödvändig lagstiftning för att skydda djur och för att visa sympati med sin smärta, men det är också en lag för mänskligheten .... I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Jag har därför meddelat ett omedelbart förbud mot vivisektion och har gjort praktik ett straffbart i Preussen. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp. [ 12 ] Tills straff uttalas den skyldige skall ställas i ett koncentrationsläger. [12]




Lab animals giving the Nazi salute to Hermann Göring for his order to ban vivisection . Lab djur ger nazisthälsningen att Hermann Göring till hans för att förbjuda vivisektion . Caricature from Kladderadatsch , a satirical journal, September 1933. Karikatyr från Kladderadatsch , en satirisk tidskrift, september 1933. Göring prohibited vivisection and said that those who "still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property" will be sent to concentration camps . [ 7 ] Göring förbjuden vivisektion och sade att de som "fortfarande tror att de kan fortsätta att behandla djur som livlösa egendom" kommer att skickas till koncentrationsläger . [7]

Goering also banned commercial animal trapping , imposed severe restrictions on hunting , and regulated the shoeing of horses . Göring förbjöd även kommersiella djur fångstmetoder införde stränga restriktioner för jakt , och reglerat skoning av hästar . He imposed regulations even on the boiling of lobsters and crabs . Han införde regler även på kokning av hummer och krabba . In one incident, he sent a fisherman to concentration camp [ 12 ] for cutting up a bait frog . [ 10 ] I en incident, sände han en fiskare till koncentrationsläger [12] för att skära upp ett bete groda . [10]

In 24 November 1933, Nazi Germany enacted another law, Reichstierschutzgesetz (Reich Animal Protection Act), for protection of animals. [ 13 ] [ 14 ] This law listed many prohibitions against the use of animals, including their use for filmmaking and other public events causing pain or damage to health, [ 15 ] feeding fowls forcefully and tearing out the thighs of living frogs. [ 16 ] The two principals ( Ministerialräte ) of the German Ministry of the Interior, Clemens Giese and Waldemar Kahler, who were responsible for drafting the legislative text, [ 14 ] wrote in their juridical comment from 1939, that by the law the animal was to be "protected for itself" (" um seiner selbst willen geschützt ") and made "an object of protection going far beyond the hitherto existing law" (" Objekt eines weit über die bisherigen Bestimmungen hinausgehenden Schutzes "). [ 17 ] I 24 november 1933, Tyskland infört nazistiska annan lag, Reichstierschutzgesetz (Reich djurskyddslagen), för skydd av djur. [13] [14] I denna lag anges många förbud mot användning av djur, inklusive deras användning för filmskapande och andra offentliga evenemang orsaka smärta eller skada för hälsan, [15] utfodring höns kraftfullt och riva ut låren av levande grodor. [16] De två huvudmän (Ministerialräte) av den tyska inrikesministeriet, Clemens Giese och Waldemar Kahler, som var ansvariga för utformningen lagtexten, [14], skrev i sin juridiska kommentar från 1939, att lagen djuret skulle "skyddas för sig" ("äh notfartyg selbst Willen geschützt") och gjorde "ett föremål för skydd som går långt utöver det som hittills befintlig lagstiftning "(" Objekt eines weit über die bisherigen Bestimmungen hinausgehenden Schutzes "). [17]

On February 23 1934, a decree was enacted by the Prussian Ministry of Commerce and Employment which introduced education on the animal protection laws at primary , secondary and college levels. [ 9 ] On 3 July 1934, a law Das Reichsjagdgesetz (The Reich Hunting Law) was enacted which limited hunting. Den 23 februari 1934, dekret en fattats av preussiska handelsministeriet och sysselsättning som infördes undervisning om djurskyddslagarna i primär , sekundär och college nivå. [9] Den 3 juli 1934 en lag Das Reichsjagdgesetz (rikets jaktlagstiftningen ) antogs som begränsad jakt. On 1 July 1935, another law Reichsnaturschutzgesetz (Reich Nature Conservation Act) was passed to protect nature. [ 14 ] According to an article published in Kaltio , one of the main Finnish cultural magazines, Nazi Germany was the first in the world to place the wolf under protection. [ 18 ] Den 1 juli 1935, lag Reichsnaturschutzgesetz (Reich naturvårdslagen) var en annan gick för att skydda naturen. [14] Enligt en artikel publicerad i Kaltio, en av de främsta finländska kulturella tidskrifter, Tyskland nazistiska den första i världen att placera varg under beskydd. [18]

In 1934, Nazi Germany hosted an international conference on animal protection in Berlin . [ 19 ] On March 27, 1936, Order on the slaughter of living fishes and other poikilotherms was enacted. 1934, Tyskland värd nazistiska en internationell konferens om djurskydd i Berlin . [19] Den 27 mars 1936, Förordning om slakt av levande fiskar och andra poikilotherms antogs. On March 18 the same year, an order was passed on afforestation and on protection of animals in the wild. [ 9 ] On September 9, 1937, a decree was published by the Ministry of the Interior which specified guidelines for transportation of animals. [ 20 ] In 1938, animal protection was accepted as a subject to be taught in public schools and universities in Germany. [ 19 ] Den 18 mars samma år, så var en vidare beskogning och om skydd av djur i det vilda. [9] Den 9 september 1937, dekret ett publicerats av inrikesministeriet som anges riktlinjer för transport av djur. [ 20] År 1938, Skyddet av djur accepteras som ett ämne som ska undervisas i offentliga skolor och universitet i Tyskland. [19]

1933: Tierschutzgesetz
Further information: Animal protection in Nazi Germany, Animal rights and the Holocaust, Ecofascism, Nazi human experimentation, The Holocaust#Medical experiments, and Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On coming to power in January 1933, the Nazi Party passed the most comprehensive set of animal protection laws in Europe.[56] Kathleen Kete of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut writes that it was the first known attempt by a government to break the species barrier, the traditional binary of humans and animals. Humans as a species lost their sacrosanct status, with Aryans at the top of the hierarchy, followed by wolves, eagles, and pigs, and Jews languishing with rats at the bottom. Kete writes that it was the worst possible answer to the question of what our relationship with other species ought to be.[57]

On November 24, 1933, the Tierschutzgesetz, or animal protection law, was introduced, with Adolf Hitler announcing an end to animal cruelty: "Im neuen Reich darf es keine Tierquälerei mehr geben." ("In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed.") It was followed on July 3, 1934 by the Reichsjagdgesetz, prohibiting hunting; on July 1, 1935 by the Naturschutzgesetz, a comprehensive piece of environmental legislation; on November 13, 1937 by a law regulating animal transport by car; and on September 8, 1938 by a similar one dealing with animals on trains.[58] The least painful way to shoe a horse was prescribed, as was the correct way to cook a lobster to prevent them from being boiled alive.[57] Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism, though by most accounts not strictly, with Hitler allowing himself the occasional dish of meat. Himmler also mandated vegetarianism for senior SS officers, although this was due mainly to health concerns rather than for animal welfare.[59]

Shortly before the Tierschutzgesetz was introduced, vivisection was first banned, then restricted. Animal research was viewed as part of "Jewish science," and "internationalist" medicine, indicating a mechanistic mind that saw nature as something to be dominated, rather than respected. Hermann Göring first announced a ban on August 16, 1933, following Hitler's wishes, but Hitler's personal physician, Dr. Morrel, reportedly persuaded him that this was not in the interests of German research, and in particular defence research.[60] The ban was therefore revised three weeks later, on September 5, 1933, when eight conditions were announced under which animal tests could be conducted, with a view to reducing pain and unnecessary experiments.[61] Primates, horses, dogs, and cats were given special protection, and licenses to conduct vivisection were to be given to institutions, not to individuals.[62] The removal of the ban was justified with the announcement: "It is a law of every community that, when necessary, single individuals are sacrificed in the interests of the entire body."[63]

[edit] Post 1945: Increase in animal use
Despite the proliferation of animal protection legislation, animals had no legal rights. Debbie Legge writes that existing legislation was very much tied to the idea of human interests, whether protecting human sensibilities by outlawing cruelty, or protecting property rights by making sure animals were not damaged. The over-exploitation of fishing stocks, for example, is viewed as harming the environment for people; the hunting of animals to extinction means that humans in the future will derive no enjoyment from them; poaching results in financial loss to the owner, and so on.[40]

Notwithstanding the interest in animal welfare of the previous century, the situation for animals arguably deteriorated in the 20th century, particularly after the Second World War. This was in part because of the increase in the numbers used in animal research—300 in the UK in 1875, 19,084 in 1903, and 2.8 million in 2005 (50–100 million worldwide)[65] and an modern annual estimated range of 10 million to upwards of 100 million in the U.S.[66]—but mostly because of the industrialization of farming, which saw billions of animals raised and killed for food each year on a scale not possible before the war.[67]



Dispans mot djurförsök (vivisektion) gavs i undantagsfall av inrikesministern. Det gällde då främst universitet.