The farmer's job, which initially had been well respected and highly appreciated, gets more and more disregarded by society. During the past weeks, campaigns supporting the protection of animals and opposing agricultural livestock husbandry were set in motion by many different groups.
By the MDR TV news magazine Fakt a report was broadcast recently about the unreasonable circumstances that were observed in the pig stables of the Lower Saxony Minister of Agriculture's son Heiner Ehlen. On closer examination it became clear that the problems shown in that film report were none indeed. At the same time, pigs from other stables were shown standing knee-high in their own excrement, gnawing at their half-dead fellow species. It had, however, been neglected to make clear that the film team had meanwhile arrived at a completely different stable. These recordings were the fault of the Arche 2000 society for the prevention of cruelty to animals which is very well-known for its unconventional ways of proceeding.

Just before that, some sensational articles had been published in an edition of the Franziskaner Mission magazine (which is the Franciscan Order's official magazine) reporting about absurd cruelty to animals that occurred in livestock farming in large stocks, where more food were being destroyed than produced. This kind of generalization did indeed contribute to wilful polarization and to making the consumers feel uncertain, as well as to the exploiting of the consumers' fears. At the same time, people managed to drag all farmers' reputation through the mud and to cast a slur on all farmers. There was no trace whatsoever of any correct factual arguments. Since one may feel reminded of the extremist societies' for the prevention of cruelty to animals way of proceeding by all those untrue accounts and statements -- by which it is tried in a truly unfair way to appeal to the consumers' conscience -- the question remains to be asked whether or not the Church tries to get on the bandwagon. It is common knowledge that the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals are very popular currently, whilst the Church struggles ever harder with the problem of secession from the Church. It's a real pity that the farmers are being spoken about in such injurious terms, especially because the Church had received unchanging support from the rural population in particular throughout the past years.

After the campaign against licit cruelty to animals had been started by the Bündnis für Tierschutz (federation for the protection of animals) at Munich, campaigns are being carried out all over Germany. Immense amounts of money are needed for that.

PeTA, working successfully all over the world as an organisation for the prevention of cruelty to animals, is known for voicing particularly radical slogans of hate, making it a matter of principle to demand for equal treatment of both animals and human beings. They say, for instance, that he who ate a broiler participated in the Holocaust and that meat eaters were murderers. They even equate animal transports with the deportation of Jews during World War II. Since man himself were a plague, PeTA's second-in-command were particularly thrilled by the fact that Germany's birth rate is decreasing. Would that be schizophrenia or the love of animals? Being supported by many VIPs and thus being permanently present in the media, PeTA works successfully world-wide. Unfortunately, many of the VIPs seemingly do not know what they are staking their reputation on.

Campaigns carried out by the respective organisations become more and more frequent. This is an unsolved issue still: Where does all the money come from that is needed for this kind of actions? An article published in the 18/2003 edition of Wild und Hund (a hunters' magazine) gives information about the financing of the Deutsches Tierhilfswerk (DTHW; German aid organisation supporting animals' rights). An insider, who had formerly worked for the DTHW, told the Spiegel weekly magazine about the fact that almost 20 million Euros were collected every year through PR work done on the roads. On top of that the DTHW receives about 12 million Euros from its membership subscriptions. Due to the fact that this organisation is neither charitable nor any type of company, no balance sheets need to be disclosed. On roundabout ways, the DTHW ex-chief let credit to his private account at least 28.9 million Euros between 1994 and 1998. How charitable that was! So-called partners to the cooperation from among his followers made a tidy sum, whilst the small societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals were kept short. The three owners of a company running various kinds of automatic machines severely expanded their influence within the DTHW. One of them helped initiate the Mensch-Umwelt-Tier association, Mut e. V. (an association supporting man, environment and animals) -- which originally was one of the DTHW's competitors -- was paid five-digit sponsoring amounts. Mut came to the peoples' attention when celebrating an extravagant gala evening at the Munich Residence. This gala evening was celebrated under the patronage of millionairess Thyssen-Henne, whose private property was earned, amongst others, by the Wiener-Wald chain of restaurants. Since when do you wear a mink coat when you are protesting against the production of fur-bearing animals? The tangle of boards and advisory councils of DTHW and other societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals -- even NABU (German nature conservancy association) feasts on the source that never seems to run dry -- is completely devious. So no-one, neither so-called animal lovers nor the victims of the campaigns, none is able any longer to really understand the way donations are being dealt with.

And now one really wonders wherever justice has got to. By means of campaigns of a sharply polemic nature, such as for instance the campaign against agricultural pig husbandry, the consumers' conscience is being appealed to. Innocent animal lovers are eager to donate money for easing their conscience, and the boards of management of the respective societies' for the prevention of cruelty to animals, including their followers, laugh up their sleeve.