Between the sacrifice of animals for Thanksgiving (?) , the Zulus killing the animals with their bare hands for their Gods, and all the other rituals people carry out in the name of tradition and religion, our world is just insane, vile and evil.  One only has to read the description of the frightened calves and implode into the depths of misery ~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/hindu-sacrifice-gadhimai-festival-nepal
The Guardian. 24 November 2009.
Hindu sacrifice of 250,000 animals begins. Cheers and protests
as thousands of buffalo are decapitated at start of festival
in Nepal honouring Hindu goddess Gadhimai.

The world's biggest animal sacrifice began in Nepal today with
the killing of the first of more than 250,000 animals as part
of a Hindu festival in the village of Bariyapur, near the
border with India.
The event, which happens every five years, began with the
decapitation of thousands of buffalo, killed in honour of
Gadhimai, a Hindu goddess of power.
With up to a million worshippers on the roads near the
festival grounds, this year's fair seems more popular than
ever, despite vocal protests from animals rights groups who
have called for it to be banned. "It is the traditional way, "
explained 45-year old Manoj Shah, a Nepali driver who has been
attending the event since he was six, "If we want anything,
and we come here with an offering to the goddess, within five
years all our dreams will be fulfilled." .
Crowds thronged the roads and camped out in the open, wrapped
in blankets against the cool mist. The festivities included a
ferris wheel, fortune-telling robots and stalls broadcasting
music and offering tea and sugary snacks. As dawn broke, the
fair officially opened with the sacrifice of two rats, two
pigeons, a pig, a lamb and a rooster in the main temple, to
cheers of "Long live Gadhimai" from spectators pushing against
each other for a better view.
In the main event, 250 appointed residents with traditional
kukri knives began their task of decapitating more than 10,000
buffalo in a dusty enclosure guarded by high walls and armed
police. Frightened calves galloped around in vain as the men,
wearing red bandanas and armbands, pursued them and chopped
off their heads. Banned from entering the animal pen, hundreds
of visitors scrambled up the three-metre walls to catch a
glimpse of the carnage.
The dead beasts will be sold to companies who will profit from
the sale of the meat, bones and hide. Organisers will funnel
the proceeds into development of the area, including the
temple upkeep. On the eve of the event, protesters made a
final plea to organisers by cracking open coconuts in a nearby
temple as a symbolic sacrifice. "It is cruel and inhumane.
We've always been a superstitious country, but I don't think
sacrifice has to be part of the Hindu religion," said the
protest organiser, Pramada Shah.
The campaign has the support of the French actor Brigitte
Bardot, who has petitioned the Nepalese prime minister, Madhav
Kumar Nepal, about the issue. But the government, which
donated £36,500 to the event, has shown no sign of
discontinuing the centuries-old tradition. An attempt by the
previous government to cut the budget for animal sacrifice
provoked street protests.
Chandan Dev Chaudhary, a Hindu priest, said he was pleased
with the festival's high turnout and insisted tradition had to
be kept. "The goddess needs blood," he said. "Then that person
can make his wishes come true."
*
See also:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/nepal/6645024/Worlds-biggest-animal-sacrifice-held-in-Nepal.html
==============================================================
[2]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8374414.stm
BBC News. 24 November 2009.
Bid to stop 'cruel' Zulu ritual.

South African animal rights activists have agreed to meet Zulu
groups in a bid to stop a bull-killing ritual, a senior
official says.  Cultural commissioner Pat Mkhize announced the
meeting after a court case brought by Animal Rights Africa was
postponed.  They are suing Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini,
arguing that the ceremony, known as Ukweshwama, is cruel.

A royal spokesman said the killing was a highly symbolic way
of thanking God.  Mr Mkhize said all parties had agreed to
take part in talks in Durban on Tuesday.  "We have called a
meeting of all parties because we believe that this matter can
still be resolved out of court," South African news agency
Sapa quoted him as saying.  Animal campaigners say the
Ukweshwama ritual does nothing to strengthen nation-building,
social cohesion or peace.
In a statement, Animal Rights Africa quoted an eyewitness as
saying the bull was tortured for 40 minutes during a previous
ceremony.
"Dozens [of people] trampled the bellowing, groaning bull,
wrenched its head around by the horns to try to break its
neck, pulled its tongue out, stuffed sand in its mouth and
even tried to tie its penis in a knot.
Gleaming with sweat, they raised their arms in triumph and
sang when the bull finally succumbed."
The group's spokesperson, Michele Pickover, said the treatment
of the bull was "unfathomable".
"It physically pains us and is an affront to our dignity that
an animal is made to suffer in such an overtly cruel and
protracted way," she said.
Royal spokesman Nhlanhla Mtaka told the BBC's World Today
programme the activists had misrepresented the ceremony.  "I
have been attending this ceremony for 20 years and it does not
happen the way they say it is," he said.  "You will hear young
men and old people singing Zulu hymns and people sitting down
and teaching each other about the value and history of the
Zulus."
Zulu groups are adamant that the ceremony will go ahead on 5
December, saying their rights are protected by the
constitution.  The Pietermaritzburg High Court scheduled the
next hearing of the activists' case for 1 December.
==============================================================
[3]
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/International/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2054&format=1&artikel=3260068
SR International. 24 November 2009.
Pig Cruelty Shown At Swedish Farms.

Swedish Radio News has published disturbing pictures taken at
a pig farm by an animal rights group which show the sort of
scenes of animal cruelty highlighted in Denmark back in May
this year.
The Animal Rights Alliance say they have evidence of other
farms carrying out flagrant breaches of Sweden's tough animal
protection laws.
Swedes have always prided themselves that when it comes to
meat, buying Swedish is best. Confidence has always been high
in the stringent quality checks regarding the living
conditions of animals raised at Swedish farms and their
subsequent journey to the kitchen table.
Back in May this year Swedish Radio News broadcast a report
that lambasted the cruel methods used to raise pigs in
neighbouring Denmark. The critics said that Danish bacon might
be cheap but at what cost to the animal? Now though an animal
rights group in Sweden has filmed disturbing images taken
secretly at a pig farm which show the sort of scenes of animal
cruelty highlighted in Denmark - cramped pig pens, lack of
food, the animals covered in sores and even eating a dead pig
on the floor.
Swedish radio news which was given the tape, says the film is
genuine and received no comment when contacting the farmer
involved, Lars Hultström, who is chairman of the association
for Sweden's livestock farmers, Swedish meats. And the group,
The Animal Rights Alliance say their film is not an isolated
incident, they've filmed at other farms in the country which
also breach Sweden's tough animal rights laws.
Now the media is investigating Sweden's animal health
inspection system which has recently changed authorities and
is looking into just how many times livestock farms are
inspected every year.
=============================================================
[4]
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/company-knew-of-drug-fears-before-withdrawal-1826445.html
Independent. 24 November 2009.
Company 'knew of drug fears before withdrawal'.
By John von Radowitz, Press Association

Evidence that the painkiller Vioxx might increase the risk of
heart attacks and strokes emerged nearly four years before the
drug was voluntarily withdrawn from the market, research has
shown.
Vioxx, the brand name for rofecoxib, was designed to fight the
pain of arthritis. It was launched in May 1999 by Merck & Co
Inc. But in September 2004, Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx
following a large trial that was halted early after finding
evidence linking Vioxx to a raised risk of cardiovascular
events.
In November 2004, Merck's then chief executive Raymond
Gilmartin testified before a US Senate finance committee that
until the halted trial, there was no suggestion from research
data that patients taking Vioxx were at increased risk.
Yesterday, experts from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in
New York writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine
produced evidence of clear concerns about Vioxx from December
2000 onwards.
==============================================================
[5]
http://www.gairrhydd.com/features/906/animal-rights-and-wrongs#
Gair Rhydd.  Issue 906.
Animal rights and wrongs.
by Amy Hopkins

Ethical treatment of animals is one of the most controversial
topics of recent times. gair rhydd investigates the issue at
hand
The widely debated issue of animal testing is subject to
various ethical, political and economic speculations. The
disturbing images of vivisection presented to us in the media
causes many to dogmatically refute the practise and question
its relevance to scientific and medical advancements.
Divided opinion prevails among scientists, ethicists and the
general public. Many claim that animal testing is a brutal
practise which allows scientists to easily feed their
curiosity at the cost of innocent animal lives. Others argue
that vivisection is an integral part of medical advancement
which has, and will continue to, improve the human condition.
For centuries, people have explored the mechanics of the body
through the experimentation of animals. As technology and
scientific intelligence has increased, particularly over the
last century, the question is often asked, is animal research
any longer necessary?
In 1876, the first laboratory controls for the testing of
animals were implemented. In 1986 the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act updated and reformed the previous rules to
incorporate growing concerns for the treatment of animals in
vivisection. Laboratories must now accept strict ethical codes
and present their research method and reasons for their
research before they are granted the use of animals.
Institutes which conduct animal testing must use the
cost/benefit procedure to judge whether the loss of an animal
life, or the potential suffering it may endure, justifies the
outcome researchers hope to obtain from the experiment. This
procedure is the source of a wider moral debate, as activists
and animal rights campaigners often argue that the benefit of
animal testing can never outweigh the cost as it is
intrinsically morally wrong to kill or harm animals.
In the UK, scientists must also receive three types of
licensing before they can legally test on animals. The first
is a certificate of designation which certifies that a
research team has the appropriate animal housing and vetinary
services available. The second is a project licence which is
only issued if the researchers have an acceptable testing
programme. The third is a personal licence, whereby the
researchers must attain the appropriate skills and experience.
The UK is the only country in the world to uphold such complex
rules and regulations concerning animal testing. To further
the ethical considerations of this applied science, in 1999
Britain introduced the local ethical review. This involves the
regulation of animal research by both a local ethical
committee and by statutory controls imposed by the central
government. Some of Britain’s strict animal testing
regulations are now spreading to other parts of Europe, as all
European governments have agreed to ban the testing of animals
for cosmetic companies by 2010, a rule implemented in Britain
since 1998.
The purposes of animal testing are widespread. Institutes such
as universities, pharmaceutical companies, defence
establishments and commercial facilities all use animals to
test the safety of products, to further scientific knowledge
and to advance medicine. Many important developments have been
made in medicine, specifically over the past thirty years,
with the use of animal testing. Scientists have created
antibiotic treatments and various vaccines which modern
society now seems to take for granted.
Cardiff University are an institution that take part in animal
testing. In its 2008 research strategy, Cardiff University
claim they, ‘strongly support the intention and purpose of the
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 […] Our research in
this area is almost exclusively on laboratory-bred rodents and
fish and is aimed at the alleviation of human and veterinary
disease through the advancement of medical, dental, biological
and veterinary understanding.’
Cardiff’s research strategy continues to claim that ‘All
animal research work at Cardiff is carried out under the
strict conditions imposed by the Government.’
Researchers at the university are independently funded to find
alternate models to animal testing. In 2007 Dr Phil Stevens
allied with the UK’s leading non-animal medical research
charity, The Dr Hadwen Trust. Several other researchers at the
university, whose work does not involve the use of animals,
recently won research funding to find other experimental
alternatives.
Many Cardiff University researchers therefore acknowledge the
wide opinion that experiments should be ethically driven, so
much so that scientists at the university won the ‘Replacement
Prize’ for the in vitro technique in 2007. Vivisection
protestors, however, argue that no matter how strict or
multiple the ethical codes are which police animal testing,
they do not suffice to compensate for the immorality and
inhumanness the practise involves. Activists often argue that
an animal’s life entails no less value than a human’s, and it
would be speciesist to assume otherwise. Therefore all species
should be given that same treatment and considerations, as all
have inherent rights.
Many also claim that animal testing is completely unnecessary
in modern society, as science and technology have so far
progressed that there are other available means to obtain the
same information that is achieved from animal testing. A
predominant argument of activist societies also claims that
animal testing is completely irrelevant to the understanding
of the human body as species are so invariably different.
Therefore any treatments that may be found through the means
of animal testing are unreliable.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), world
renowned animal activists, campaign for the complete
abolishment of animal testing, promote vegetarianism and
tirelessly campaign for the elimination of the fur trade,
along with many other animal issues all over the world. BUAV
(British Union Against Vivisection) also campaign peacefully
for the elimination of animal testing.
The Home Office issued this statement concerning activist
violence: ‘Animal rights extremists have conducted a sustained
campaign of harassment and intimidation against the animal
research industry, including targeting people at home and in
their communities.’ This behaviour is not standard among all
activists, but it does raise a paradox in their views of
ethical treatment.
It seems that the activist argument against animal testing
focuses predominantly on the issue of value, essentially
arguing that the value of animal life weighs equal to that of
human life.
Yet a counter argument from a humanist perspective is that the
benefits of animal testing will usually outweigh the suffering
caused to the animal as human life intrinsically possesses
more value than that of an animal.
Many also argue that animal activists often overlook the facts
and regulations of animal testing, as new ways of reducing
animal suffering are continually being updated. Another
counter- activist argument focuses on other exploitations of
animal life, arguing that they are much less beneficial than
animal testing. A 2007 survey revealed that meat eaters
consume about 2.5 billion animals every year, which is nearly
1000 times the number of animals used in research. It is also
estimated that nearly 12,900 stray dogs are put to sleep each
year, whilst half of this amount are used annually in animal
research. And the Environmental Health Journal estimates that
650,000 vermin are killed by pest controls in UK homes each
year.
The arguments, facts and regulations concerning animal testing
evoke various opinions which it seems will not be reconciled
in the near future. Whilst differing and conflicting views on
the value of human and animal life prevail, a general opinion
seems unlikely. Yet the regulations implemented at least
attempt to remedy the concern that animals are subjected to
unnecessary cruelty during vivisection, in the meanwhile
allowing vital research to continue. It seems to be a
prevailing argument that animal testing is currently necessary
for vital medical research, though researchers are en route to
finding further alternatives which will enhance the ethics of
science and medical quality.
==============================================================
[6]
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9C5T8K80.htm
Business Week. 24 November 2009.
Merck says key Fosamax lawsuit dismissed.

Merck & Co. on Tuesday said a U.S. district court dismissed
claims against the company in a second key case alleging the
osteoporosis drug Fosamax causes painful jaw bone destruction.
According to Merck, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Keenan
granted Merck summary judgment in the case. The company said
the ruling stated the plaintiff's physician was unqualified to
render an opinion and the plaintiff failed to present
sufficient evidence to support her contention that the drug
caused her to sustain osteonecrosis of the jaw.
Osteonecrosis involves a loss of blood to the bones, causing
bone damage. As of Sept. 30, Merck faced 953 lawsuits by about
1,334 plaintiff groups who allege Fosamax caused the same jaw
condition. Fosamax is approved to treat the thinning of bone
tissue and loss of bone density. In September, a federal judge
declared a mistrial in a separate case focusing on the same
allegations. Jurors in that case could not reach a verdict.
A third "bellwether", or key, case on Fosamax is scheduled to
begin April 19, the company said
==============================================================
[7]
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435786385&Drugmakers_Get_Double_Dose_of_Bad_News_Over_HormoneReplacement_Therapy_Products
Law.com. 24 November 2009.
Drugmakers Get Double Dose of Bad News Over Hormone-Replacement Therapy Products.
Jury sets $34 million in punitive and compensatory damages Monday; an earlier verdict, unsealed the same day, is for $78 million.
Amaris Elliott-Engel,  The Legal Intelligencer

A Philadelphia jury returned a $28 million punitive damages
verdict Monday against two drugmakers over the drugmakers'
hormone-replacement therapy drugs that the jury found caused a
plaintiff's breast cancer.
And a $75 million punitive damages verdict from the end of
October in another hormone-replacement therapy, or HRT, mass
tort case was unsealed by court order after the other jury
verdict was rendered around 2 p.m. Monday.
On Friday, the jury in Kendall v. Wyeth awarded more than $6
million in compensatory damages to plaintiffs Donna Kendall
and John Kendall Jr., their attorneys said. In the punitive
damages part of the case decided Monday, the jury awarded $16
million against Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer, and $12
million against Pharmacia & Upjohn, which also is now owned by
Pfizer. The total verdict adds up to more than $34 million.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Victor J. DiNubile Jr.
presided over the trial. In the Barton v. Wyeth case, which
had its hefty punitive damages award publicly revealed for the
first time Monday, the jury awarded $3.7 million in
compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages Oct.
29 after a reverse bifurcation trial, said Esther Berezofsky
of Williams Cuker Berezofsky in Cherry Hill, N.J., counsel of
record in the Barton case. The total verdict awarded to
plaintiff Connie Barton in that case is $78.7 million.
According to a plaintiffs attorney count, of the five cases
that have gone to trial in Philadelphia in the last three
years, all of the cases have ended in plaintiffs' verdicts.
Pfizer countered in a press statement that of the 34 HRT cases
that have gone to trial around the country there have been
only four plaintiffs' verdicts that have not been set aside.
There are more than 1,500 HRT cases pending in Philadelphia's
Complex Litigation Center, the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas' center for mass torts litigation. Zoe Littlepage of
Littlepage Booth in Houston was trial counsel involved in
trying both the Barton and Kendall cases. Tobi Millrood of
Pogust Braslow & Millrood in Conshohocken, Montgomery County,
and Ron Rosenkranz of Finkelstein & Partners in Newburgh,
N.Y., were also plaintiffs counsel in Kendall.
Wyeth's defense counsel in the Kendall case included Michael
T. Scott and Barbara R. Binis of Reed Smith in Philadelphia.
Charles P. Goodell Jr. of Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann in
Baltimore and Gita Rothschild of McCarter & English in Newark,
N.J., represented Upjohn. After the verdict, the defense
attorneys declined comment and referred The Legal
Intelligencer to Pfizer's media relations department.
During a brief statement to the jury on punitive damages,
Millrood told the jurors they had to decide what it would take
for the defendants to finally listen and safeguard consumers
from ill effects from their HRT drugs. In awarding punitive
damages for Kendall's injuries, "we're not talking about a
fender bender or something that is insignificant," Millrood
said. "We're talking about taking away someone's dignity.
We're talking about taking away someone's femininity."
Goodell, who spoke on behalf of both Upjohn and Wyeth
regarding punitive damages, said that the jury's message had
been received by the companies' scientists, sales staff and
managers after the compensatory damages verdict. He said that
the companies had never wished harm. "These companies have
important work," Goodell said. "You've told us we have to do a
better job. We will do a better job."
Both plaintiffs attorneys and defense attorneys went to talk
to the jury after the punitive damages verdict.
As the attorneys went into the anteroom to speak to the 12
jurors, one defense attorney said to another: "It's going to
be painful. Suck it up." Littlepage said the jurors spoke
directly to counsel for Wyeth and Upjohn and told them: "'You
need to study your drugs. We felt you didn't want to know bad
answers'" on an alleged causal link between HRT drugs and
breast cancer and other ailments.
Plaintiffs attorneys said in interviews that there is little
sign of any interest by Pfizer in settling the HRT claims. "We
are disappointed with the verdicts in these cases," said
Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder in an e-mailed statement. "The
company believes that neither the awards of punitive damages
nor the liability verdicts were supported by the evidence or
the law. We plan to challenge both decisions in post-trial
motions and, if necessary, through an appeal."
Cancer has been found in Kendall's lymph node system and there
is a 75 percent chance of recurrence, Littlepage said. Kendall
had mastectomies to remove both of her breasts in 2002
following her diagnosis with breast cancer, Kendall's
plaintiff's pretrial memorandum said. Kendall took Wyeth's
estrogen drug Premarin and Upjohn's progesterone drug Provera
between October 1991 and 1998, and Kendall took Wyeth's
Prempro combination drug of estrogen and progesterone between
1998 until her diagnosis of cancer in October 2002.
Kendall argued in her pretrial memo that timely testing and
adequate warning would have prevented her breast cancer.
Barton said in her plaintiff's pretrial memorandum that she
took Wyeth's HRT drug Prempro between May 1997 and May 2002.
Barton underwent a left mastectomy and reconstructive surgery
following her breast cancer. Plaintiffs advanced theories of
negligence, failure to warn of breast cancer risks in the drug
labeling, fraud and willful conduct, the Barton and Kendall
pretrial memos said. Upjohn and Wyeth raised a learned
intermediary defense, the Barton and Kendall pretrial memos
said.
Berezofsky said that, with more than 1,500 cases pending in
the HRT mass tort program and little interest from Pfizer at
this point in mass-scale settlements, cases are going to have
to be consolidated for trial in order to get all the cases
tried. It would take 100 years to try all 1,500 HRT cases when
the cases take four to five weeks to try, Berezofsky said. A
motion has been filed to consolidate for trial three cases
that she is involved with and that are set for trial early
next year.
Millrood, plaintiffs liaison counsel for the HRT program, said
that consolidation of trials has been very cost-effective and
efficient in mass torts cases. Many cases in the program are
in a holding pattern because the Pennsylvania appellate courts
haven't ruled on the statute of limitations question.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Sandra Mazer Moss,
coordinating judge of the Complex Litigation Center,
determined that the cases without a statute of limitations
question should go to trial now, Millrood said. Moss decided
that the first cases to be tried would be the earliest filed
case from each of the 16 plaintiffs firms that have some
volume of HRT cases, Millrood said.
Prior to Barton and Kendall there were only three HRT cases
that got to trial in 2006 or 2007.
There were no trials during Judge Allan L. Tereshko's tenure
as coordinating judge in the Complex Litigation Center, as
Tereshko focused on legal rulings in many of the cases. The
dismissal by Tereshko of many HRT cases because of the statute
of limitations is pending in state Superior Court.
Although Moss lifted the seal on the punitive damages in the
Barton case Monday, Moss decided to not lift the seal on the
punitive damages award in the Daniel v. Wyeth case from 2007
because that case is on appeal to the state Superior Court and
is outside of her jurisdiction, Berezofsky said. Pfizer filed
an emergency motion Monday seeking to have the seal on the
Daniel case sustained.
==============================================================
[8]
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091125/world-news/severe-reactions-to-swine-flu-vaccine-in-canada-who
Times of Malta. 25 November 2009.
Severe reactions to swine flu vaccine in Canada - WHO.

An unusual number of severe allergic reactions to swine flu
vaccinations have been recorded in Canada, where a batch of
the vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been recalled, the
WHO said yesterday.
"An unusual number of severe allergies to the vaccine have
been detected in Canada," World Health Organisation spokesman
Thomas Abraham said. "The Canadian authorities are conducting
the appropriate investigations on the vaccines" and "recalled
a batch of vaccine from GSK."
"We need to understand what happened in Canada," he added.
GlaxoSmithKline spokewoman Gwenan White said that the affected
doses of its Aprepanrix vaccine had caused reactions to the
heart and lungs. Ms White added that some 172,000 doses are
involved, although she declined to reveal how many of those
had already been used.
GlaxoSmithKline have asked Canadian medical authorities to
stop administering vaccines from the affected batch, Ms White
said, adding the company's investigations were ongoing. WHO
spokesman Thomas Abraham said that the WHO had not changed its
recommendations regarding swine flu vaccines.
Last week, the WHO said checks on many of the 30 deaths
recorded following mass pandemic flu vaccinations had so far
ruled out a direct link to the vaccines. The fatalities made
up a minute fraction of at least 65 million doses of swine flu
vaccines which have been administered, said the WHO, citing
data from 16 countries.
For every 10,000 doses of vaccines administered, only one
report of adverse effect had been logged.
Of every 100 reports of adverse effects, five are serious
cases such as death, the WHO said.
More than 6,750 people have died worldwide since the virus
appeared in April, according to WHO data.
==============================================================
[9]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/slaughter-of-the-innocents-200000-of-them-1826945.html
The Independent. 25 November 2009.
Slaughter of the innocents (200,000 of them). Animal welfare
protesters fail to halt ancient but 'barbaric' Nepali ritual.
By Binaj Gurubacharya in Kathmandu

Hundreds of thousands of Hindus gathered at a temple in
southern Nepal on Tuesday for a ceremony involving the
slaughter of more than 200,000 animals that has infuriated
animal welfare protesters.
A Nepalese minister said it was the largest sacrifice of
animals in the world. Protests by animals rights activists and
other religious groups have occurred in recent weeks in towns
near the Gadhimai Temple and in the capital, Kathmandu, but
the organisers refused to halt the slaughter, saying it is a
centuries-old tradition.
More than 200,000 buffaloes, goats, chickens and pigeons will
be killed over two days at the temple in the jungles of Bara
district, about 100 miles south of Kathmandu, to honour the
Hindu goddess Gadhimai.
Taranath Gautam, the chief government administrator in the
area, said hundreds of thousands of people began lining up in
the early hours of yesterday morning and that the animal
sacrifice rituals had started.
The Gadhimai festival is celebrated every five years.
Participants believe that sacrificing the animals to Gadhimai
will end evil and bring prosperity. Many people join the
festival from the neighbouring Indian state of Bihar, where
animal sacrifices have been banned in some areas.
Critics say that the killings, carried out by slitting the
animals' throats with swords, are barbaric and conducted in a
cruel manner.  "We were unable to stop the animal sacrifices
this year, but we will continue our campaign to stop killings
during this festival," said Pramada Shah of the Animals Nepal
group, who is related by marriage to Nepal's deposed king.
She claimed that the festival could provoke a medical
emergency. "The government must take immediate action to
address the grave health risks of the mass sacrifice,
including bird and swine flu, TB and food poisoning." Ms Shah
added that the sacrifice would also "send out the message to
the world that we are still a barbaric nation."
Government minister Saroj Yadav said he believed the festival
was the biggest animal sacrifice in the world. "We haven't
heard a bigger number... We are certain this is the largest
one."
Devotees take the slaughtered animals back to their villages
and then eat them during a feast. The meat is considered
blessed and it is thought that consuming it will protect them
from evil.
==============================================================
                             LACS
==============================================================
[10]
Your season's greetings can help keep animals safe from
cruelty this Christmas.

http://www.league.org.uk/xmas
The League Against Cruel Sports' festive merchandise is
proving popular with our loyal supporters who have been
captivated by the striking images of wild animals in their
natural habitat.
A great way of supporting the League's work to stop cruelty to
animals in 'sport' and spreading the word about our campaigns,
the cards and calendar are ideal to send to friends and family
around the world.
But Hurry!  If you wish to place an order, you'll need to do
so soon before time runs out!
To avoid disappointment, please visit the League website to
order online or telephone 01372 844 670 (lines open Mon-Fri
9am-5pm).
=============================================================