|
Makaleyi Paylaş
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Yahoo
Newsvine
Googlize this
Facebook
PDF Görüntüle
Yazdır
E-Posta Gönder
Though we have a lot of intellectual, helpful, pragmatic and high-quality
people in Turkey, most of them refuse to get in touch with such societies
because of this negative image. Unfortunately, this faulty "society"
and "animal-lover" (read: "does not love people") image
combined with the perception of "local denouncement organizations"
caused them to lose their potential powers as NGOs which they may use to create
pressure on administrative organs. Even worse, the duty of an animal protection
society is dictated as "to take care of cats and dogs, or provision funds
to this end". This is GOVERNMENT'S duty, not that of societies'. In fact,
having societies that collect donations from their rich and helpful volunteers,
and trying to do exactly as told may be the pinnacle of this twisted dilemma.
Personally, I could never have understood why a society collects money to
spay or neuter stray animals. Which one of us may be richer than the government
itself? Or, to put it differently, which one of us collect money in our
neighborhood when electric/water/gas infrastructure in our street needs to be
changed, to do what our local municipality needs to do. Granted, our instinct
to feed an animal always suppresses the logical thing to do - exchanging formal
letters with related government organs to remind them of their duties, thus to
protect animal rights as a whole. The satisfaction in the latter act, which
will undoubtedly result in a cold, formal and maybe even repulsive
"official" letter, can never measure up to that of the former one.
This is why collecting money from the rich (and sometimes even from the poor) to buy food for the animals or to provide veterinary services should not be among the primary duties of a society. A society cannot do what a government has to do with its limited budget and manpower. Even if it has billions of dollars, it just can't manage the vicious circle.
What, then, should be the duty of an animal protection society, foundation
or a federation?
As NGOs, their duty must be to pressure the government to do its duties
properly. They must perform PR work via local TV, radio and printed press by
using the donated money to create public awareness. Such societies must work in
close coordination with their representatives, mayors, ministers, police
chiefs, teachers, etc., to open up stands in local events, print posters and
establish connections with rotarians, masons and other similar organizations to
break the status quo. Holding panels, attend international symposiums, filing
cases in courts, sharing the outcome of such cases with the public, thus
teaching the public "how to fish" is among their primary
responsibilities.
One may remember the case of a society in Samsun, which managed to get a serious amount from EU. They have been equally successful to waste a huge percentage of it on dry animal food within a year, and began to ask for donations from volunteers again. This is a perfectly clear reflection of the above said vicious circle. This is the truth in which we all live yet refuse to accept. We refuse because we never want to leave a job funded by volunteers to its original assignee, the government. Sometimes I thought to myself that maybe we all are trying to soothe our "feeding" instinct by hiding behind that "animal protection volunteer" or "animal protection society" label.
While one has the opportunity to feed an animal, thus achieving psychological
satisfaction, no one wants to spend money on printing a brochure, designing a
poster, hiring a billboard or arranging a panel. One simply sees the wounded
dog, the beaten-up horse or donkey, the cat with one leg crushed by a car in
the streets. One spends thousands of dollars for these animals.
And one day those spent thousands of dollars lead to the slaughters in
Bandırma, Antalya, Mamak, Kutludüğün, Marmaris, Bodrum or Didim. We especially
emphasized this point in HAYTAP meetings in Istanbul and Ankara. We clearly
stated that it is impossible for the volunteers to cover up for the wrongdoings
of other people, even in a lifetime.
For instance, as HAYTAP, we held meetings with Istanbul Metropolitan
Municipality recently. As a result, the government, which asked for payment
even for a spaying or neutering operation, agreed to do it for free! More
information on this will be available on our web site soon.
Societies and foundations must become 'organizations' to pressure
government by using brochures, posters, media and meetings to do their duties
which they forgot, do not want to do or do reluctantly. Otherwise, even if one has millions of dollars one cannot make
up for other people's wrongdoings. One can never find enough money, nor time
and effort for such a huge cover-up. This is what has been going on so far, and
this is why the whole system collapsed.
There are a few good examples, though. Cities like Giresun, Adana and
Eskişehir succeeded, though not exactly this way. Others who haven't succeeded
are simply NGOs who tried to play government while their money lasted, then
began to ask for donations just to survive.
The philosophy behind the newly established HAYTAP is to follow a less traveled path along with the exemplary work set by Adana or Eskişehir, and grow across the nation. HAYTAP is training people this way. Because the old system has toppled down.
But Giresun collaborated with the government and succeeded, just like Adana,
Eskişehir or Kadıköy. They did not become so flagrant since they did a good
job. However, the ones who insistently try to do what government has to do will
keep going under while being criticized by everyone because they are not
delivering results.
From now on, animal rights should have a new vision unlike its old one,
organizations must remind the government its duties that it does not want to do
and thus act as a mechanism that helps government work, NOT as denouncement
points.
Then there are those who does not like this new system. They act as agents
to carry sensitive information, team up with the ones like them and attack
those with the new vision, they hate teamwork, they dislike
"noisy" acts like PR work or seminars, they keep focusing on individuals
rather than plans or results and they tend to come up with unfeasible
"projects" to block out this new approach.
All because they know that this new idea, new approach signals the end of
the world they created, in short, the end of the beginning.
Ahmet Kemal
Şenpolat, Attorney At Law
Chairman, Board of
Directors of
HAYTAP Animal Rights Federation
Bu e-Posta adresi istek dışı postalardan korunmaktadır, görüntülüyebilmek için JavaScript etkinleştirilmelidir
(*) Bu metni türkçe olarak okumak istiyorsanız lütfen aşağıdaki linke tıklayın .
Bu yazı için geridönüş linki
Bu yorumun beslemesine abone olun
