When politics seals the cause

If you really want, you can come up with evidence to support or justify any theory, objective or cause. Inventing a suitable euphemism for a rather unpleasant activity is a good start. Traditional seal hunt becomes a “seal harvest”, for example.

Name aside, seal hunt is a controversial activity but, unfortunately, both sides of the debate often support their respective causes with less then honest arguments and ways of putting them forward. Those campaigning for the ban of seal hunt and the related merchandise tend to use heartbreaking imagery, including pictures of the techniques that are no longer used and the species (e.g. whitecoats) that can no longer be “harvested”. However, that doesn't relegate the fact that there are wild-life animals being killed en-masse for profit.

The pro-hunt defense is more complex though hardly sophisticated enough to pass successfully through both thorough scrutiny and opponents' review. The latest initiative came in the form of the “Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals” prepared by Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, and endorsed by Gerry Byrne, MP, the Liberal fisheries and oceans critic.

Prepared by the team of, and I quote from the Senator's press release, “eminent scientists and experts”, it does have a feel of serious document and undoubtedly a solid scientific substance including data from environmental protection groups. The only trouble with politicians hastily harvesting expert opinions under the agricultural moniker is that their activity will very likely backfire.

And as such an activity, the Declaration has very little credibility.

It's not universal, as it claims in its title. It's Canadian. Canada accounts for most of the seals killed worldwide and therefore has the greatest interest in promoting the cause. Other countries that practice seal hunt were not consulted. The Declaration is aimed solely at the European parliament members who are about to vote on ban of seal products.

Another issue was presentation. During the introduction of the Declaration to the media, words such as “lies”, “misinformation” and “propaganda” were uttered with rather unsettling regularity in connection with the anti-hunt side of the argument. European parliament members could vote for the ban to “appease animal rights groups”. The same groups whose numbers are being used to justify the sustainability of the harvest. By the way, the use of the word “harvest” is an ammunition material for the anti-hunt camp and they often use within inverted commas. In other words, “harvesting seals” is a linguistic and euphemistic equivalent of the Japanese whaling for scientific purposes.

Canada usually emphasizes the “native” part of the seal hunt, portraying the activity as a natural part of lives of the northern communities. And rightly so, hunt and fishing has been their traditional way of life and source of nutrition, that's why the proposed EU ban would exempt Inuit hunting. Seal hunting is vital for survival of many northern communities. But again, there is significant difference between traditional seal hunt and industrial, for-profit, activity that is, somewhat ironically, called “seal harvest”. In this context, shifting attention to the historic and native heritage of seal hunt plays on emotions in the same way as a picture of slaughtered whitecoat and, frankly, can be easily, although perhaps unjustifiably, dismissed.

Which is not surprising given the fact that the presentation of the Declaration simply dismissed arguments of the dissenting parties, many of which are valid in the same way as those used in the Declaration itself. The document, scientific as it is, coated in environmental and sustainability furs with a hint of universal pedigree, remains a political initiative of the pro-harvest Canadian political scene.