BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Cat killing artists are found guilty.

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
moriarty
14:40 / 17.01.02
Sorry, couldn't fit the address to provide a link. You can find it at the Toronto Star site.

Here's the full text of the piece.

"Two men who skinned a cat alive, then kept torturing the feline on a 10-minute videotape that left animal-care workers in tears, pleaded guilty to their crime in a downtown Toronto courtroom yesterday.

Jessie Champlain Powers, 23, and Anthony Ryan Wennekers, 26, face up to 2 1/2 years in jail after pleading guilty to one count each of cruelty to animals and mischief.

Police are still hunting for a third man who took part in the mutilation at a home in the Bathurst and Queen Sts. area in May, 2001.

The video, yet to be played in court, is expected to be shown in an Ontario Court of Justice courtroom at old city hall when the pair are sentenced on Jan. 29.

The motive for the crime remains a mystery. Detective Constable John Margetson said Powers first suggested it was done for art, and later said in court it was done to make a statement against meat eaters.

"I suspect the truth is that these gentlemen have issues in their mind that only they know," Margetson said outside court.

Acting on a tip, Margetson and his 14 Division partner, Detective Gord Scott, went to the home with Toronto Humane Society worker John Dobranski.

Dobranski found the body of the decapitated cat draped over a coat hanger in a fridge. Strewn about the room were other animal bones along with some mice in a cage.

Investigators found the incriminating video in a batch of about 40 VHS tapes that were seized as evidence.

Dobranski said in a later interview that he was stunned when he first watched the tape, saying: "It took me a while to adjust to what I was seeing."

Other workers at the humane society broke down in tears when they saw the video's contents, said Daniela Roque, a humane society worker.

The video began innocently enough, said Dobranski, with Powers, Wennekers, and the third man trying to entice the cat into catching and eating a mouse. The camera was on a tripod.

But when the cat won't kill the mouse, an unknown voice can be heard saying: "Let's get down to it."

Investigators knew the cat was still alive through about 10 minutes of torture because it kept meowing.

The helpless creature appeared to be struggling for its life, moving its front paws "like it was kind of trying to defend itself," said the officer.

Margetson, who said he could only watch the tape once, said he found himself hoping the cat would die quickly so it wouldn't have to go through any more pain.

"But the cat was still alive, making that noise, like a gurgling sound deep in its throat," he said.

Roque said she hopes this incident will help persuade federal legislators that the punishment for killing or harming animals should be increased to five years in jail from the present six months.

That proposed amendment to the Criminal Code is in its third reading, she said.

"The current penalty was set 100 years ago. We think differently now about animals than we did then," she said."

[ 17-01-2002: Message edited by: moriarty ]
 
 
Hieronymus
16:20 / 17.01.02
Jesus.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
16:24 / 17.01.02
No news on the third guy though.

Legalities aside, it would probably be safer for those guys to spend a while in jail. if they get off then Toronto my see a return to public lynchings.
 
 
Knodge - YOUR nemesis!
17:02 / 17.01.02
I don't know how anyone could get through watching a video like that. I could barely read the text above.

2.5 years is not long enough.
 
 
odd jest on horn
00:52 / 18.01.02
i really do hope you people are not meat eaters, and are conscious about buying products that are not tested on animals.

i do admit that this makes me fucking sick, but 2.5 years for killing a cat in a mere 10 minutes? would they have got of easier if they'd eaten it?
 
 
Molly Shortcake
03:46 / 18.01.02
I've got an idea, why don't we lock up all the people who eat meat. And then, since animals should be treated by human standards, we can lock up all the animals who eat meat too!
 
 
odd jest on horn
07:36 / 18.01.02
yay! finally a man of sensibilities. and give the fuckers life in prison.
 
 
Ierne
13:49 / 18.01.02
I hope it is possible to not derail this thread into a discussion about the politics of eating meat. That's probably better done in the Head Shop. This thread pertains to the torture and death of a living creature under the guise of "art".
 
 
odd jest on horn
14:27 / 18.01.02
actually, that's not entirely true (or at least thoroughly ambiguous). from the news article:

quote:
The motive for the crime remains a mystery. Detective Constable John Margetson said Powers first suggested it was done for art, and later said in court it was done to make a statement against meat eaters.


but anyways, sorry for cheapening the thread. i was tired and thought i was playing devil's advocate.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
01:37 / 20.01.02
Good. As someone who recently lost a cat, I can happily say ' Ha Ha!' to then in a Nelson-from-the-simpsons voice. I mean, I accept that they had a semi-valid point about our double standards regarding animals we don't eat and animals we do, but the fundamental fact is: It's such a completely FUCKING tired, obvious point, which is so fucking obvious to anyone, that it's hardly y'know, intellectually challenging work. People are hypocrites? You Don't fucking say! Tell me more of your words of wisdom Mr Psycho!
On a side note, wasn't Jeffery Dahmer, and possibly other serial killers, obsessed with cutting up animals before they moved onto humans? And no, I don't know where I'm going with that, but I thought it was worth mentioning...
Actually now that I think of it, they're arrest and imprisonment is actually a far more confrontational, intellectually stimulating artwork. The message of this piece is "The US Legal System in sometimes actually works!" I think they should give the Judge who imprisoned them the fucking Turner Prize.
And do you really think these people were actually vegetarians themselves???
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
13:50 / 21.01.02
was it ganesh?
 
 
Ganesh
13:54 / 21.01.02
No, it was art...
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
17:06 / 21.01.02
wonder if Ivan Miaow would approve? (ouch)

spose we could ask tomcat coates.

I'll get me (fur) coat.
 
 
odd jest on horn
11:04 / 05.02.02
Let me state this beforehand:

i used to own a cat, i cried when he died. i would have absolutely skinned the fuckers in return had they done this to my cat.

and i do eat meat, but it's a very small amount and i'm trying not to. shame on me.

and my original post was posted in a more or less jesty, devil's advocate-y frame of mind.

but.. this just made me angry

quote:
I mean, I accept that they had a semi-valid point about our double standards regarding animals we don't eat and animals we do, but the fundamental fact is: It's such a completely FUCKING tired, obvious point, which is so fucking obvious to anyone, that it's hardly y'know, intellectually challenging work.


i don't see it as a "do eat" vs. "don't eat".
i see it (and i'm by no means sure that was *their* statement) like this.

who the fuck cares about *one* cat who died in a measly 10 minutes (though i do), when there are millions of animals out there, some more intelligent than cats, who are living their *whole lives* in pain and then die in a not much more cozy manner than this cat. are they "statistics" due to their sheer number, as stalin so elogently put it? was princess di's death more horrid than other car crash deaths out there, because she wasn't "common people" and it got publicity?

and the point is not fucking obvious unless you worked on a factory farm. hardly anyone knows or wants to know. they want to eat their meat guiltfree and still keep their conscience.

go out and do a poll in the streets. go ask people whether they think farm animals are treated humanely. i expect a 95% yes answer.

then go ask people if they know that milk cows frequently get mastitis from milking (my gf got mastitis twice, it's not pretty), and almost always get osteoroposis. ask them if they know that most pigs are kept in concrete pens with no straw or earth, unable to move more than a few inches. ask them if they know that most hen are kept standing on wires their whole, admittedly short lives, and that some of them have such an advanced case of osteoroposis that their feet fall apart from beneath them. ask them if they know that pigs are doped up so that they don't get so upset getting killed. it would totally spoil their meat with adrenalin. go ask them! and go find out what ignorance looks like when it's confronted.

and how can anything regarding making other beings feel better be "tired"? do you feel that discussing or doing something about poverty is tired?

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: odd jest on horn ]
 
 
odd jest on horn
11:07 / 05.02.02
why is this thread under art anyways? there was some vague connection with art through some mutterings of one of the perpetrators. is it possible to move this somewhere else? headshop comes to mind, though i'm not too clear on what belongs where.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
05:07 / 24.02.02
i'm hypothesizing here, but what if they made the video just for the fuck of it, to torture a cat and tape it, but then when they're sorry asses got busted the only way they could think of to get out of jail was to go the larry flynt route and call it art?

to bring the thread back to the "art" topic - - this case brings up the interesting issue of using "Art" as a way to get away with something else. i really don't like richard kern, for example, because i don't think his photos are very good, and his old movies are for the most part retarded. they are pretty great porn though, and what's funny about his work is that you will see the same photos on gallery walls, printed in expensive japanese art books, and then in the pages of "Barely Legal" etc. pretty good scam, it supports his expensive furniture habits.

the veinese action movement videotaped some pretty foul things -- including, i think, a woman fucking a swan and buthering it. yet something about those people (otto meuhl, etc) always struck me as being fascinating, perhaps because of the artistry and intent. what if (and i'm saying this only as an imaginary adventure, not because i think it's the case) this cat slaughtering video turned out to be somehow the most georgeous 10 minutes ever seen, and it is being reported only by people who don't get it?

what about the kmfdm "piece" where they kidnap and torture someone as a piece of performance art? what's the difference between lolita and child porn? the use of "art labelling" to excuse crimes is itself an interesting turn in art theory, is it not?
 
 
Ria
09:08 / 25.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Gypt:

what about the kmfdm "piece" where they kidnap and torture someone as a piece of performance art?


I hadn't heard of their doing that. could you tell me more, perhaps by private e-mail if you wouldn't want to get off topic?

I had heard of a similar stunt by an artist I forget but they had people sign waivers and selected them at random from yes. and BTW I would have applied for victim status in the conceptual art too if I had the chance.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
09:08 / 25.02.02
posted by mystery gypt: "what if (and i'm saying this only as an imaginary adventure, not because i think it's the case) this cat slaughtering video turned out to be somehow the most georgeous 10 minutes ever seen, and it is being reported only by people who don't get it?"

you know what? i really think i could live with the possible 'loss' to art if this act had never occurred. i am also quite happy not to 'get it'. i am never going to be swayed from knowing that the people who did that were disgusting.
 
 
Saveloy
09:08 / 25.02.02
Yes. Probably worth stating that art is not the get-out clause that it's often claimed to be. An action can be both art and a crime. It's not an either/or situation. Also worth mentioning that conferring art status on something is not a guarantee of quality - art is just a category; art can be rubbish.
 
 
deja_vroom
14:09 / 25.02.02
By water: quote:I don't know how anyone could get through watching a video like that. I could barely read the text above.

Man, this is horrible.
How can someone be so fucked up they can't understand PAIN?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:05 / 25.02.02
Oh, I reckon they understood pain all right. Wouldn't be any fun for them otherwise, would it?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
15:18 / 25.02.02
Now, I'm certainly not pro cat-skinning, but it does occur to me that there are ambiguities not being explored here.

Are the perpetrators of this art/crime sick (mentally unstable) or sick (eeeeevil)? If the former, is it correct to imprison them, and if the latter is two and a half years excessive, not enough, just right? And why? Is the negligible damage done to society by the loss of a cat a factor? As has been mentioned above, are the truly monstrous conditions much domestic meat produce is raised and kept in a proof of hypocrisy on the part of some of those who condemn, or is that a cowardly and irrelevant argument? Is it OK to be cruel to animals as long as nobody sees it?

It's all a bit confusing - especially after reading a report saying that many species of gorilla and other apes are likely to become extinct in the next decade as a result of the demand for bushmeat in Europe, the penalties for the sale of which are I suspect rather less than 2 1/2 years in prison...
 
 
deja_vroom
15:40 / 25.02.02
By Haus: quote:Is the negligible damage done to society by the loss of a cat a factor?

I'm only guessing here, but I think these sort of laws, the ones which rule over issues that are not crucial to the society per se, are reflections of the spirit that laws are intended to stand for, the benchmark for what is acceptable for a good human being to do. If you go to the basis of most of the civil legislature, you'll notice that the writers most of the time refer to admitedly ethereal concepts like ethics, well-doing etc. I think it all realtes to the feeling of harmony with the world you're in, as part of it, and your responsability as a being from the technologicaly dominant species. Perforating a cat's skull with orthodontic devices is anything but harmonic, I'd say.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
15:47 / 25.02.02
Well, yes, but I don't see anyone jailing people who perforate whales' skull with great big exploding harpoons, or who cram chickens into tiny boxes while pumping them full of chemicals to make them grow too big and plump to be able to use their legs. And, to be brutal, there are a fuck of a lot of cats out there, only comparatively few of which are going to be skinned alive, whereas we are running pretty short on whales, gorillas and bonobos. It doesn't make torturing a cat to death any better, but it does beg the question of why the everyday process of capitalist animal welfare isn't considered *worse*...
 
 
deja_vroom
16:01 / 25.02.02
By Haus: quote:Well, yes, but I don't see anyone jailing people who perforate whales' skull with great big exploding harpoons, or who cram chickens into tiny boxes while pumping them full of chemicals to make them grow too big and plump to be able to use their legs. And, to be brutal, there are a fuck of a lot of cats out there, only comparatively few of which are going to be skinned alive, whereas we are running pretty short on whales, gorillas and bonobos. It doesn't make torturing a cat to death any better, but it does beg the question of why the everyday process of capitalist animal welfare isn't considered *worse*...

It depends to whom you ask.

I think that it is equally as bad.
And it will depend on the environmental laws of different countries, too. In Japan it's perfectly legal to perforate whale's skulls etc, in other parts of the world you can get arrested for it.

I'm not even trying to play devil's advocate here, but I think that to some people, the cat killing seems more cruel because there is a sense that nothing was accomplished in the end, whereas when it comes to killing animals for food, FOOD is produced, which strikes some resonance to whatever obscure neolitic hunter ghost we have in our collective minds... I know it's horrible, what can I say?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
16:04 / 25.02.02
So if they had eaten the cat afterwards....
 
 
deja_vroom
16:13 / 25.02.02
No, it still would be a cruel, senselees act. They were not neolithic hunters. They could just have gone to a supermarket and bought or stolen food., if that was the case. The whole videotaping thing gives bonus point as cruelty/sick factor. But you know all that. Keep behaing like that and I'll arrange a meeting between you and the Korean President, so you can talk to him about what you think of their millenia old habit of eating dogs..


[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: I'm Not Here de Jade ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
16:29 / 25.02.02
So, if you kill animals and don't eat them, it is bad. If you eat animals but don't kill them, it is OK. If you kill animals and then eat them, it is bad unless you are a neolithic hunter, in which case it is OK.

Sorry, I think this is too ethically sophisticated for me.
 
 
deja_vroom
16:48 / 25.02.02
By Haus: quote:So, if you kill animals and don't eat them, it is bad. Not necessarily(and I don't believe I'm going this lenghts). If you killed the tiger that was menacing you, you wouldn't necessarily have to eat it.

By Haus: quote:If you eat animals but don't kill them, it is OK.

It depends. There's a talk about free radicals and celular oxydation that connects the high rate of meat consumption to accelerated ageing rate, and fat meat has bad effects to your heart and circulatory system. So, to the eater, it's not always OK. To the animal you're eating, is never OK.

by Haus: quote:If you kill animals and then eat them, it is bad unless you are a neolithic hunter, in which case it is OK.

Yes. Because you need to stock energy and glycosis for when that big glacier get next to your cave, and a carrot won't have the same effectiveness, I'm afraid.

By Haus: quote:Sorry, I think this is too ethically sophisticated for me.

You made it sophisticated, you sophisticated you... now live with it.

[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: I'm Not Here de Jade ]
 
 
Mourne Kransky
09:28 / 26.02.02
That Haus Red is a cheeky yet challenging wee Cabernet Sauvignon...
quote:So, if you kill animals and don't eat them, it is bad.
Killing for fun, with no other justification, probably is.

But I squash wasps mercilessly and without compunction to protect the fragile wasp-shy loveliness of my partner and when my nieces start to panic in their presence. None of the above is allergic to the sting, so far as I know.

Also, I try to eat stuff I buy with "cuddled to death on Happy Farms Inc." labels but I am fully aware that billions of sentient creatures are living their entire lives in cruel conditions to provide me with the materials for Osso Buco. Their deaths were probably a mercy. Their wretched lives were the greater tragedy, no doubt.

quote:If you eat animals but don't kill them, it is OK.
No, it's either utter hypocrisy or entirely understandable convenience.

The livestock to which I most regularly have access are NHS managers and they'd probably taste like very elderly mutton, fed entirely on gin. And the butchering would mess up the Bokhara rug in the living room.

I eat meat and do so in denial of the fact that I know this poor beast suffered to become my tasty snack. I grew up on a farm and could certainly shoot, skin and gut a rabbit for the pot but who has the time? At least I'd know the rabbit ran free in the fields, ingesting its own shit and eating its own young in its bunny way, until I put a sudden and relatively painless stop to its bunny vie de boheme.

quote:If you kill animals and then eat them, it is bad unless you are a neolithic hunter, in which case it is OK.
Or you might be in harmony with a natural cycle, even in these de-natured times.

However, if you capture a non-consenting cat and torture the poor little fucker to death for entertain or for the benefit of art, you would indeed be bad, evil, sick, call it whatever you will.

If you can do that to a cat and not feel the pain that beast experiences for your momentary pleasure then you should come see me and I'd kick your head in with my biggest and butchest pair of DM's specially polished for the purpose, with nary a qualm of conscience.

Or, preferably, so that doesn't happen, you could be locked away for a long time and cleverer, more compassionate people than me might have a chance of making you face up to your undoubted crime.

And I would just have to hope that the classification of sentient creature covers cats and not wasps in order to live with my inconsistent self.

It might well be a great and challenging work of art but that changes not one iota of the above to my mind. But thank you for asking your customarily tough questions, Big H.
 
 
Ganesh
09:34 / 26.02.02
Glassing cats is okay, though.
 
 
Rage
09:34 / 26.02.02
Better than bombing abortion clinics!
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
09:34 / 26.02.02
I have a suspicion that the respective jail sentences handed out may not back you up...

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus Red ]
 
 
The Damned Yankee
10:10 / 26.02.02
Well, I eat meat, and for that matter, so does my cat.

It's pretty clear that the sick fucks on trial were floundering for a defense to justify the unthinkable, hence the hopping from "art" to "anti-meat protest".

Also, it is true that serial killers often get their start by toturing and killing animals. In nearly every serial killer's background, one can find animal cruelty, along with bedwetting and/or pyromania (source: the book Mindhunter by John Douglas and Tom(?) Olshaker)
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
10:43 / 26.02.02
With the exception of lovely lovely Zocher and plinky meowy Ganesh, there seems top be a certain shattering-on-the-far-wall element to this conversation.

Try again.

What if the sick fucks had skinned and tortured a tuna?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply