Are animal cruelty arguments only relevant when they suit us?

Isn't the human-pet relationship a perplexing one? For a multitude of reasons, be it attachment, loyalty, passivity or care, a large number of people appear more concerned with the wellbeing of their animals than they do other people. For an author that used to dislike dogs, the saying "man's best friend" always sounded odd.

The relationships in question have surfaced again recently, with many widely condemning Premier League footballer Kurt Zouma after a video of him drop-kicking and slapping his cat emerged online. The thought-process of celebrities with a public following never ceases to amaze, because anyone with a functioning brain would think to refrain from anything controversial. More than controversial though, this is an example of animal abuse that rightly brings attention to pet wellbeing and a debate about the importance of protecting them.

There has been further contest over the severity of Zouma's punishment. The RSPCA have taken the cats to a safe place, whilst the West Ham defender has been fined two weeks wages by his club - equating to £250,000 - which will be donated to animal welfare charities. The public recrimination and reputational damage far exceed this monetary value, and will stay with him for the rest of his life. And yet, there are still hounds circling for more blood to be shed. 

Credit: cbc.ca

West Ham resisted pressure to drop or suspend Zouma and he will be continually available for selection in the coming weeks, a decision which has baffled many. After an offence of this severity, surely he cannot continue?

If their wishes are to be satisfied, then where do we draw the line? Are we to continue (excuse the unintentional yet distasteful pun) kicking a person until they're down? The punishment handed out to him is in fact probably far greater than any other animal offender would have received, both in monetary and reputational terms, although I am painfully aware that is not through the law. To continually force him away from playing football suggests that we need to take away every aspect of a life of anyone in the spotlight, before we can be satisfied.

The online world and newspaper sensationalism are not the greatest measures of public opinion, but nevertheless, the witch-hunt has become too great. Especially when you consider that it is a witch-hunt that is built on layers and layers of hypocrisy.

People only find it easy to get on a high-horse, condemning this abuse, because cats and dogs are effectively treated as sacred by the British public. That they are the most popular choices for domesticated pets is no coincidence. Their importance to people is, as mentioned earlier, sometimes as great as the people around them.

So we can expect the same people to have similar levels of compassion to all other animals? Of course we can't. A total of 86% of people in the UK consume meat foodstuffs, despite the growing number of alternatives out there. Apparently the protein they contain is necessary for our diet - despite the high number of pulses that exist to serve that notion. 

No-one wants to equate meat consumption with animal abuse and the primary reason for that lies in what we see. Meat in shops appears all packaged for us, whilst we continue to live under the illusion that this is slaughtered humanely. Have you seen slaughterhouses and factory farms? You have to have a staggering level of ignorance if you think chickens, pigs and ducks are cutely trotting about together waiting for the moment their saviour farmer comes to kindly butcher them. Leather and fur come as attractive propositions for fashion and we are more than happy to accept those on our shoulders or feet.

Look, if people want to have the view that they're aware of what happens and it doesn't bother them, that is fine. There is no use in the moral high ground to be taken by me berating people who want to consume meat.

But surely people must see the hypocrisy they exude when they get all high and mighty about one cat, whilst regularly consuming other innocent animals! You can't have your cake and eat it. Because if the mob aren't consistent about the animal welfare, then it suggests that the vilification of Kurt Zouma is for something different.

Perhaps it is envy? Seeing the riches and lavish livelihood of a successful person may give some people a kick, especially the 250,000 people who signed a petition calling for Zouma to be prosecuted. For after all, many people don't believe footballers should earn such extortionate wages. 

Or maybe people don't like a young black footballer? We've seen the crass, baseless accusations and tabloid headlines aimed at Raheem Sterling and Marcus Rashford. We've seen the racist abuse aimed at the latter, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho received for missing penalties in the Euro 2020 final. So it wouldn't be far-fetched to suggest that it is a reason. 

Whatever the reasons, it is becoming excessive. As teammate Michael Antonio defended Zouma on Thursday, he made a very salient point. Why does the punishment given by West Ham to the defender (more than suitable) dwarf punishments within football for racism? Previous players have been given a ban of a few matches, or fines of up to £50,000. Perhaps football fans ought to help their game get its cards in order, before going heavy on one issue where their arguments are based on duplicity.

Fundamentally, Zouma's case is indicative of just that. Throughout society, people are willing to force overly-punitive sanctions, but only when they see a chance to improve their self-image. It would be interesting to see the reaction had this emerged from someone not in the limelight, and I am sure it has happened more frequently than many like to imagine.

In wider society, we are becoming less and less forgiving of people. Often people are tainted by one moment for the rest of their lives, because the mob culture has grown to never let these things go. Our justice system may not be suitable for many crimes, so a sense of cynicism is understandable but even then, come on. 

In a simple way, people are products of their experiences and emotions and these lead to events occurring the way they do. And restorative rehabilitation seems far more useful than retributive rehabilitation to solving the problems caused by crime. 

Sometimes we have to be able to live and let go, put instinctive emotions aside and work towards solutions that will benefit all parties involved. If we can't do that? Then the chasms that divide us can never be eroded.