Why is it illegal to kill Gaense?

VG Gelsenkirchen confirms Bochum tradition: Animals are allowed for the "gooseseride "to be killed

  • Horrible "customs", which no one needs if their humanity has not been used up (or they still need an upgrade from the Middle Ages to the modern era).

    Kerstin Reck
  • @Kerstin Reck
    But you have read that the geese are dead when the riding takes place?
    Where is a ban supposed to come from here?

  • @Keiler: Yes, I read that. Only where did you read that I am legally non-prohibited - jdf. according to the local judgment e. VG Gelsenkirchen - address which? Even if my comment could possibly lead to a discourse about it - customs, law, humans, animals, being dead, chopping off the heads of dead animals, while riding on live horses, a wide area ...

    Kerstin Reck
  • Strange customs. But if the goose is eaten anyway.

    Marc E.
  • Anyone who takes part in this "tradition" needs a psychiatrist. A competition in which the head of a carcass is ripped off? How repulsive is that, please?

  • From a protection point of view, I find the slaughtering much more questionable than tearing off a dead goose's head. Nevertheless, the participants of the event mentioned in the article are denied that they are "human".

  • Whether you personally find it good or bad, you might have to put it on the back burner. More relevant: animals are slaughtered to be eaten later. So far, so normal, so socially recognized. "In between" a somewhat strange ritual is held that could be a kind of "desecration", but on the one hand it is not a criminal offense for animals, on the other hand it only takes place once a year to maintain a "custom".

    Also interesting: Especially those who are otherwise always prohibited from doing too much are calling for a restriction of freedom through a judicial ban. Qui bono? - the geese are dead, one way or the other.

    Count Lukas
  • I find it disturbing that in our enlightened, civilized world there are still protection from medieval "customs and traditions" that all have one thing in common: the lack of respect for our fellow creatures, animals, whether dead or alive. Whether in bloody bullfights, stressful circus events, cruel bird murders or brutal animal chasing and hunting events. The animal is always exploited, tortured, killed or simply despised as a mere thing out of greed for profit, for fun and for the amusement of the people. Do humans really need that? No. Can he be proud of that? No. If the animals are giving their lives to survive, then - damn it - we should show them the necessary respect for the dignity of their own lives. That has a lot to do with our own human dignity, doesn't it? We have managed to socially outlaw smoking. Then why don't we finally manage to outlaw such disgusting, animal-hostile "customs and traditions"? The judges would have done well to set an example in favor of a rethink. If not now, when should we start?

  • Even the sentence: "... only if the animals are eaten afterwards ....." clearly shows what judges have decided here. How can an animal killer (animal eaters are indirect killers through their own consumption of animals because their consumption gives the order to kill) as a judge to decide on an animal murder ???? Really pointless !!

  • Everyone who thinks / advocates this and possibly still actively participates in it belong in the closed psychiatry anyway!

    Now let's be clear
  • But that's enough with this stupid politics and the shitty courts ... they want to change something ...? Where, then ...? You don't do anything ... damn it .... should be ashamed to tolerate something like that and something else

    @Keiler ... if you are of the opinion that the animals are dead anyway and therefore it does not matter ... then make yourself available to us when they have died so that we can do the same with them ????

    Honestly, people expect a little more and respect ... and the animals have kindly deserved it ... what's going on in these stubborn countries ... I get really angry at something like that horrible ...

    If politics and courts just like people don't slowly understand that the animal is not the beast, but THE HUMAN and then go in that direction and act accordingly then it would be commendable .... but why use a hollow brain isn’t one anyway ... man man man

  • Well, in any case, there is a discourse ... I personally find it interesting that mutual / all-round opinions / comments, among other things. Party affiliations / party affiliations or eating habits / preferences, life and morals, also opinions or attitudes to other issues or network affiliations, etc., hm ...

    Kerstin Reck
  • If you read the chatter of the alleged animal rights group, which is predominantly moralizing, lacks expertise and is full of pathos, then you have to ask yourself a few questions:

    1.) How many of you actually wear bags, shoes or belts made of real leather? And who of you checked how the animals whose hides are being processed were slaughtered? Well, it was a joke question, I admit.

    2.) I read more and more about the "dignity of the animal" ... assuming there is, then
    - it is noticeable that it is supposed to continue to have an effect after the death of the animal (here we are already cautious with humans, keyword post-mortem right of personality, compared to living), and
    - that there was comparatively little criticism of the animal's eating. So: Chop off your head, in the kitchen, for consumption, yes. Tear off the head, for the maintenance of customs no?

    Who should decide which customs are reasonable? Personally, I think the goose ride makes no sense. But I also find a vegan diet nonsensical because it is inherently malnutrition (from which small children have already died - luckily they had no feathers!). And now? Who can now decide what kind of behavior to allow others to do?

    3.) And even if one wanted to agree to this moralizing mob of less well-off do-gooders on the matter (which is difficult with the arguments put forward here, but not completely unsympathetic, of course) then one must give them a certificate of indignation with regard to the direction of their anger:
    It is the politicians who make the law. In that case the members of the Bundestag. Not judges. So there are two options:
    a) You stop judging and start to get involved politically (yes, yes, it is work, is known), or
    b) one continues to curse the judiciary for adhering to the applicable laws (which one was too lazy, cowardly or stupid to change) - in other words: calls for perversion of the law (is stupid too, but you only notice when you realizes that without the guarantees of a functioning constitutional state, one is only half as privileged as one previously thought ...).

  • A small note on the side: it is only a decision, not a judgment.