DUFFY CIRCUS RINGMASTER Threatens protestor– Id take bits out of you!

by Mark Mon Jul 20, 2009 13:49

Duffy circus owner ,Damien Duffy, is on the Joe Duffy show RTE1 right now..

by Joseph Mooney Sat Jul 18, 2009 19:39

Independent Dublin City Councillor Cieran Perry has proposed a motion for inclusion in the next City Development Plan calling for the banning of all Circus's which use animals from using Council property as well as calling on Dublin City Council to use planning enforcement to ban these circus's from any other venue while they use animals.

by Eve Thu Jul 16, 2009 20:03

Fred - you're totally correct re the Arts Council circus funding. For 2008 alone, Duffy's was granted 75,000euro by the Council and roughly the same amount has been allocated for 2009. It's a travesty that circuses using animals are allowed continue in this day and age. I can't understand why anyone would want to watch animals being demeaned and have their spirits broken. Not to mention the vile living conditions, constant travelling, and brutal "training" methods. There are many fantastic human-only alternatives out there so there is no excuse for patronising these disgusting events.

by Mr Man Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:36

Catlady;

"you prefer to watch animals suffer?"
Where did you read that in what I said? Was there something unclear about "I don't like animal circuses and support banning them"?

"This is not am intellectual exercise for me or my 11 rescues"

Quite obviously. So sorry if I want to attempt informed debate rather than just shouting semantics. My two rescues can do it.

by catlady Tue Jul 07, 2009 03:25

you prefer to watch animals suffer? please explain. This is not am intellectual excercise for me or my 11 rescues
happy to recieve explanation

by RogerYates Mon Jul 06, 2009 13:12

In a sense, it is a shame that anyone needs to talk of banning animal circuses. It would be nice to think we could engender social values in which no-one would want to go see nonhuman animal 'performers' in the circus.

However, it would also be nice to live in a society in which the rich do not enrich themselves on the back of others and one in which no-one would dream of trafficking human beings into slavery - or being a 'client' of a trafficked sex worker, for example.

But I suppose, those thoughts are for a later, less violent time, when we do not commodify weaker others.

Perhaps those who attend the animal circus do not really understand what they are financially supporting. For example, I wonder whether people appreciate that nonhuman 'performers' often undergo a 4-stage process involving taming, training, rehearsal and performance. The first two of these tend to occur well beyong the public gaze - rehearsals are often presented as 'training' but that is likely to be untrue - and the performance is when people are seeing the fully 'broken' and subdued animal: even the 'wild fierceness' of, say, lions, is false at this stage.

Who would want to watch the end of an animal, we certainly tend to avoid slaughterhouses.

by Mr Man Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:24

"the statement referred to a moral right, rather than a legal one. Legally I can own a tiger. Morally I cannot, or perhaps you think I can???"

99% agree, It does refer to a moral right, rather than a legal one and I do think it is immoral to own a tiger. However, morals are relativistic, ie not universal so claiming as the author does that it is a 'basic' right is untrue as this alludes to legality and moral absolutism ie believing that one own morals are the 'right' morals. Reflected in the statement "Because animal acts are neither educational nor uplifting." as clearly some people DO find animal acts uplifting (maybe not educational, but who knows) by the mere fact that alot of people go.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like animal circuses and support banning them, I just don't like people claiming moral superiority as that leads down a bigoted path.

by Fred Johnston Sat Jul 04, 2009 18:27

If this story is true and such a threatening statement was made, we should remember that circuses these days are, eh, arts' events and are funded by The Arts Council. If Duffy's is so funded, then tut-tut, doesn't it all reflect rather badly on the mandarins who run the Council?

by Catlady Thu Jul 02, 2009 23:20

the statement referred to a moral right, rather than a legal one. Legally I can own a tiger. Morally I cannot, or perhaps you think I can???

by Mr Man Wed Jun 24, 2009 13:33

"Because all animals, non-human and human alike, share one basic right: the right to live their lives freely and in harmony with their own nature."

Patently untrue

by catlady Tue Jun 23, 2009 00:42

jesus................
i need a licence for my small dog right? (Jack russell cross) fuck that i'll just buy a crocodile!

Cat