Hundreds of thousands of people in Switzerland eat cat and dog meat, particularly at Christmas, according to a Swiss animal rights group seeking to ban the practice.
SOS Chats Noiragigue is behind a campaign to ban the consumption of cats and dogs, more commonly associated with countries such as China and Vietnam, in the small European country. A petition to parliament has gathered almost 18,000 signatures so far, including actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot.
Founder and president of the group Tomi Tomek told the BBC that 3% of Swiss people eat cat or dog meat, 80% of them being farmers. The Lucerne, Appenzell, Jura and Bern areas are the main culprits.
“One woman gave me a recipe for cooking newborn cat,” Tomek said. “I went to the police, a veterinarian and the government and they all told me that there was no law against it.” She was told to write a petition and try to get a politician to support her. She’s now rallied five to her cause.
Cat meat even features prominently on Christmas menus in some parts of Switzerland, Tomek said, while dog meat is also used to make sausages. “It is an old tradition in Switzerland to eat dog meat like sausages and use dog fat for rheumatism,” she said. “They eat cats because they taste like rabbits.” They are apparently prepared in the same way and best served with white wine and garlic.
“Farmers will eat their cats and dogs when they have too many, says Tomek. “I told them to sterilize the animals but they said it was too costly and it made a good meal.”
(Reuters) – A celebrated 1881 portrait by French Impressionist Edouard Manet on Wednesday smashed the record for the artist when it sold for $65.1 million at Christie’s, going far towards the auction house’s solid total takings of $165.6 million.
“Le Printemps,” an oil painting owned by the same family for a century, had been estimated to sell for as much as $35 million, but half a dozen bidders competing for the work, most of them via telephone, helped drive up the price.
Do Not Take Believers to Court 1 Corinthians 6 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
6 Suppose one of you wants to bring a charge against another believer. Should you take it to the ungodly to be judged? Why not take it to God’s people?
2 Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? And if you are going to judge the world, aren’t you able to judge small cases? 3 Don’t you know that we will judge angels? Then we should be able to judge the things of this life even more!
4 So if you want to press charges in matters like that, appoint as judges members of the church who aren’t very important! 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that no one among you is wise enough to judge matters between believers? 6 Instead, one believer goes to court against another. And this happens in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you take another believer to court means you have lost the battle already. Why not be treated wrongly? Why not be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong. And you do it to your brothers and sisters.
Chan Pui Woo Teresa v Ng Fook Khau Michael and another
 SGHC 65
25 March 2011
Lai Siu Chiu J:
1 Chan Pui Woo Teresa (“Teresa”), who is the plaintiff in this suit, was the unfortunate victim of an advance fee fraud, more commonly known as the “419 fraud” or “Nigerian scam”. She sued Ng Fook Khau Michael (“Michael”) who is the first defendant, and her former colleague Jonathan Tan See Leh (“Jonathan”) who is the second defendant, holding them responsible for the money she lost as a result of the fraud. Advance fee fraud comes in many variations but the basic concept is that the target is induced to part with his money to the fraudster in the hope of realising a significantly larger gain. The fraudster first baits the target by, for example, promising him a cut of a large sum of money locked up somewhere in exchange for his assistance in transferring the money through his bank account, or informing him that he has won a lottery. If the target expresses interest, the fraudster would take him through a series of steps to effect the transfer of the “money”. However, there would invariably be hurdles along the way and the fraudster would ask the target to advance some of his own money first to pay administrative fees, deposits, taxes, etc. The target, lured by the prospect of easy money, coughs up the sum requested but would then encounter more hurdles necessitating the payment of further sums of money. The process repeats itself until the fraudster disappears without a trace or the target realises he has been deceived. By then, the target would possibly have parted with substantial amounts of money.
2 The fraud here was apparently perpetuated by Michael among some members of the Christian community in Singapore which included Teresa. It is not disputed that Teresa had advanced various sums of money to Michael, in respect of which she sued him for recovery. Teresa also claimed damages against Jonathan for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation in respect of the fraud.