Foie Gras Protesters return to the Pearl Brasserie

by Catlady Mon Jun 23, 2008 00:42

Where do Nazis come into the equation? Why are you bringing them up? I certainly didn't....

As for anthropomorphism, I must disagree. To anthropomorphise a non-human or an object is to endow he she or it with uniquely human characteristics. Liver disease is not a uniquely human characteristic. Neither is the pain of having a long tube rupture your throat, or indeed any other sort of pain. Were I to start campaigning for the rights of geese to free education, I would certainly be guilty of anthropomorphism. Campaiging for thier right not to have liver disease inflicted on them is not anthropomorphism. I have seen the process of force feeding geese in France, and the animals are most certainly in distress, despite the farmers claims to the contrary.

And of course horrific things happen to Irish animals of every sort on Irish farms, be they farms to produce flesh, milk, skin or fur. What on earth makes you think that the same people outside the pearl brasserie do not campaign against these abuses???? You should perhaps visit the NARA website before jumping to erroneous conclusions.

As for the "well loved animals" bit.... Oh please..... I love my animal companions dearly. Therefore I do not attempt to induce liver disease in them. Anymore than I would do to a human I loved dearly. In fact, I wouldn't even consider doing it to an animal (human or non-human) for whom I had a deep rooted personal dislike. It i called empathy. Or respect. Or whatever other term you like to come up with that is in binary opposition to terms such as abuse, cruelty, greed, sadism and the like.

by cruelty free meat eater Sun Jun 22, 2008 00:57

1. There are often protests at places restaurants like McDonalds, laboratories which carry out cruel experiments on animals, even circuses, as far as I know. For more information on these, contact the NARA at the address above.

2. The Pearl Brasserie Restaurant is still serving Foie Gras.
They have taped a photograph over the menu that's visible from the street, but it's still available on the menu that's given to diners. (you can actually still see it on the menu iif you peer oer ther edge of the picture).

Some of the staff are clearly uncomfortable with serving it, and have been saying that it will be taken off the menu at some point in the future. The restaurant manager, however, is unrepentant, and instead of speaking to the protesters preferred to try to intimidate them by using the fire hose, then his video camera, and most recently by calling the police (and wasting their time).

by Mr Man Sat Jun 21, 2008 23:56

I see the point you are tying to make by protesting, but I really can't see the moral difference between this and battery hens or the halal/kosher way of killing animals by slitting its throat and letting the blood drain out. Or killing an animal then peeling off its skin. You may protest the serving of fois gras, but then someone else might protest a restaurant serving meat, depending on ones relativistic morals.

As far as I was aware, the fois gras wasn't on the menu but rather it was understood that if you ordered a certain thing, you *may* get some fois gras. Can you confirm it's definately on the menu?

by eatey Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:14

You're anthropomorphising these animals too much. Geese and ducks have no gag reflex and they do not get stressed by the force feeding as it is done at a time of year when these animals evolved drive to over-eat kicks in anyway. This is simply using their natural instincts to our advantage.

And as I said, chickens in this country are far less cared-for.

Also, the very pictures you publish show how small-scale and organic the industry is.

I agree there seems to be, to the uninitiated, an inherent cruelty to the practise. But then, all farming of animals involves bulking them up and slaughtering them for consumption. It's a bad thing that people nowadays are divorced from the reality of where their food comes from. If they took a greater interest and were exposed more, you'd find they wouldn't find the production of foie gras so appalling but neither would they tolerate many more practices not banned in this country.

As I say, go after the big companies, not small-scale farmers and restaurants serving a delicious delicacy.

by gavage Thu Jun 19, 2008 21:08

Production of Foie Gras is banned in Ireland on the grounds that it is cruel to the geese.

It is banned in many other countries and even cities in the US such as Chicago.

A farmer in Ireland who treated livestock like the geese used in foie gras production would be (rightly) prosecuted by the police.

If the Irish ban on production makes sense, then how can it be right to import this disgusting stuff?

"much-loved and well-kept livestock"?

Pearl Brasserie, Dublin

by eatey Thu Jun 19, 2008 16:58

or some of teh other chain-restaurant who, in pursuit of the bottom-line buy their food from vast factory-farms who have no interest in the welfare of their animals.

You're picking the wrong target in picking on small-time French farmers producing a delicacy from much-loved and well-kept livestock.

by eatey Thu Jun 19, 2008 16:54

I can tell you that the lives of the fowl used in the production of foie gras are far more pleasant that the lives of battery hens.

The force-feeding of the animals only takes place on the 12-14 days prior to slaughter and most farmers [small-scale, organic concerns who use traditional methods to produce the finest food] maintain that the force-feeding is not uncomfortable for the animals. After all, a distressed animal will not produce good meat. The animals themselves are free to roam as they grow up, again in stark contrast to battery hens/chickens.

Of course, targeting a "foreign" method of food-perparation and animal-husbandry is easy. Far more animals are given a far worse life by farmers in our very own country. Fattening of fowl by force-feeding has been prevalent in European farming for about four and a half thousand years by the way.

As for the comparisons with NAZI culture, that's just lazy argument. Their is some solid arguments for vegetarianism but this lazy, easy-target action of threantening the jobs of restaurant staff and organic farmers is just typical of bullies.

by Protest Thu Jun 19, 2008 16:22

At a recent demonstration the owner called the guards - no action was taken of course, because the protesters were not doing anything wrong. It was a cheap attempt to intimidate and did not work. The protests will continue - next one is provisionally planned for Saturday 28th June. All welcome.

It also turns out that the owner of the Pearl Brasserie is telling his customers that is taking Foie Gras off the menu- but this is a lie.

by Catlady Thu Jun 19, 2008 14:13

Once again we have the old excuse of "culture" trotted out as a means of attempting to defend the indefensible, as though culture were something static and unalterable. As cultural protestor correctly pointed out, slavery was once part of American culture. To this I would like to add that it was once an accepted part of French culture too....

Furthermore, female gentital mutilation is (to follow the logic of eaty) "inexorably entwined" in the cultures of various countries. Does this mean it is wrong to protest about such barbarity? Would say, West African cultures die off if all women there were suddenly allowed to remain attached to their labia? Would French culture become a thing of the past were the force feeding of geese and ducks to induce liver disease banned?? Has Irish culture disappeared since it has become illegal to drive around pissed out of one's head???

To say that any one practice is "inexorably entwined" with any culture is, IMHO, more than a little insulting to that culture. The implication is that were, in this case, foie gras banned, the entire French cultural hertage would somehow be magically forgotten! What absolute nonsense, as I am sure anyone with a knowledge of the same would agree.

Eaty also suggests that protests should only be held outside the French Embassy. I wonder what social justice movements eaty is involved with as such tactics would yield little result. It is clear from the video clip here that the protestors are not "Scaring people" at all, but holding a peaceful and lawful protest - the kind of protest that has proven to be very effective again and again.

What could the French Embassy possible do to stop foie gras being sold in Dublin restaurants anyway? Do enlighten me if you can. Nobody is asking the restaurant to close down incidentally, simply to remove this product, which is nothing more than the result of wilfully mistreating animals in order to consume their disease ridden flesh, from their menu, and to encourage diners to boycott the place until such a time as they do so, or at least to choose a different starter.

The only "scary" prson involved here is the restaurant owner who threatened and physically abused the peaceful protestors on a previous occassion, and continued to do so until warned off by the gardai.

If a protestor wanted to be "scary" they would simply bomb the place, or set in alight. They wouldn't put themselves in danger by holding a peaceful protest outside the place.

The campaign is working by the way. More and more restaurants are removing the diseased liver delicacy from their menus, I am glad to say.

by cultural protester Tue Jun 10, 2008 14:47

Bull fighting is a part of Spanish "culture".

Slavery was part of the "culture" of the old southern states of Mmerica.

Getting drunk and driving home from the pub, it could be argued, used to be part of the culture of rural Ireland.

At the moment, protesting at restaurants where people eat foods derived from animal cruelty (production of which is banned in Ireland) is part of Dublin culture. If you want to eat Foie Gras or serve it at your restaurant then you have to be prepared for protests.

by eatey Tue Jun 10, 2008 14:22

Foie gras is a delicacy. In fact more than that; it's inexorably entwined in the culture of France. It would be difficult to prevent its production there or indeed its sale here so why target a restaurant rather than the French embassy?

I do see the misgivings people have for the method in which it is produced but it's not exactly gonna do your cause any good to attempt to curtail the business of a restaurant [and the jobs of the restaurant's staff] by action like this.

People see this sort of militant action and think "nutters". You picked this target because it was an easy one. Scaring people is not a progressive way to promote your argument.