Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
For the first time in history, a party was elected to a parliament...
that focuses on animal rights, The Party for the Animals.
Four people founded this party.
The necessity of it was put forward by Niko Koffeman, years ago.
I expected that a Party for the Animals would inspire other political parties...
to think that it's not nice of these people to found this party...
and compete with the Green parties making them do more for animal welfare.
We mustn't stage protests outside of the Houses of Parliament.
We need to be on the inside to change things and get animal legislation.
Marianne Thieme is the face of the party.
For years, she'd been unhappy with animal welfare in politics.
I'm going into politics because the weakest aren't represented.
Gandhi said: A nation's civilisation is measured by how it treats its animals.
In the last Social-Liberal coalitions there was an animal friendly majority.
But if you ask them why there is no legislation for animal welfare...
they say that they can't do everything and there are so many more subjects.
It was a side issue, but other political parties who are occupied with animals...
such as the Christian-Democrats, the Lib Dems and the LPF...
were trying to take as many animal unfriendly measures as possible.
October 2002, was an unlikely time to found The Party for the Animals.
The fact is that you are criminalizing animal activists.
By considering them as terrorists, while we have civil law for such cases.
You're disqualifying animal welfare as a subject and turning it into terrorism.
This is playing on people's general fear of terrorism.
Are animal activists stigmatized? -Absolutely.
If there is a time to speak up, it's when you're being criminalized.
When you see animals rights being torn down and animal welfare in danger.
Then it's time to show your true colours.
And to try gain public support and make this support tangible.
The four took on the challenge and founded The Party for the Animals.
Just in time for the parliamentary elections in January 2003.
Nobody thought it would be successful.
Besides Emile Ratelband or Winnie de Jong...
there are some more men and women campaigning...
while deep down they must know that they won't make it into parliament.
But, they are putting up a stiff fight. A report by Cees Overgauw.
We want to give the animals a vote. -Hello, you're in such a hurry.
I just want a moment. Isn't my coat divine?
There is a lot of interest in us, so I say: Vote for The Party for the Animals.
Marianne Thieme, party leader of The Party for the Animals is on the go.
Why do we need a Party for the Animals?
The one moment she's on the radio. -We're talking about a milliard animals.
Who have awful lives. -Then she's campaigning in Amsterdam.
And in between, we catch her in the train.
Parliament is full of nonsense so why do we need a Party for the Animals?
People laughed at our party and it wasn't a surprise, really.
A party that stands up for non-humans was unheard of.
Up until now, there were only new political parties for the poor...
the rich, the Christians, the labourers. But a party for the animals?
What's next? A party for the plants?
If you know that how we treat animals is a great threat to our ecology...
and to life on Earth, you have a reason to chose an a-typical name.
Which reflects your a-typical political views.
A party that doesn't focus on humans but one that looks beyond self-interest.
Not the right of the strongest, but the interest of the weakest.
A provocation? -It is provocative...
to tell people not to focus on their own interests, which is the norm.
It's what the English call mind provoking, it makes you think.
How is this possible? And this is partly why the party is such a success.
A Party for the Animals has easy pickings.
Millions of Dutch citizens are members of wildlife organisations.
There are 700,000 vegetarians and if they all vote for us...
that's potentially 14 seats. -Fourteen seats in parliament?
They didn't get that far.
But they did get more votes than all the new parties put together.
But just not enough for a seat. However, there was hope.
The Party for the Animals has more votes but I'm not sure how many, yet.
A lot of animals have managed to claim some votes.
But, no dogs in parliament yet.
We're almost there, but not quite.
The next stop was the European elections of 2004.
Europe is the large sponsor of agriculture.
In the European parliament there is much to gain for animal welfare.
Because the member states hand over their responsibility to Europe.
Europe is a disaster for animals.
Millions of live animals are transported as if they were already dead.
Livestock, on their way to be slaughtered.
Parties such as The Greens have shown that they won't stick up for animals.
Their programme states that livestock transports can last up to four hours.
But in a new petition they have lowered this demand by fifty percent.
They want a maximum of six hours now. To get politics on the move again...
we need a pacer in the marathon, The Party for the Animals.
They didn't make the electoral threshold but they were gaining popularity.
The parliamentary elections of 2006 seemed to offer chances.
Writers, artists, scientists and opinion makers...
joined the party as supporters on the list.
Why support The Party for the Animals? -Because animals are sacred.
And always innocent. And we, who are never innocent...
do a lot to harm the sacred ones.
Straight after the elections, the author Mensje van Keulen sent me an e-mail...
stating that she had voted for The Party for the Animals.
This prompted the idea to do something with this.
Mensje Van Keulen got us in touch with other writers.
The number of electable candidates just grew and grew.
This resulted in extra publicity and extra votes.
Thanks to a donation from philanthropist Nicolaas G Pierson...
a large campaign was launched.
What kind of a threat the party had become to the other political parties...
became clear in a pre-election debate.
Candidates from all the parties portrayed an animal heaven on earth.
And claimed to be animal friendly. -All those in favour?
You all are? Thank you, next proposition. All those in favour?
All. The government must choose for livestock breeding without cruelty...
or environmental damage. All those in favour?
Everybody? You all agree with this? So, why isn't it the case?
Even prior to the elections, the party was the pacer in the marathon...
raising the importance of animal welfare.
We need legislation for this so we'll need a majority in parliament.
So, don't turn your back on your party, whatever your party is...
to vote for The Party for the Animals as you'll need a majority.
Parliament is about power.
The party leadership had outflanked Harm-Evert Waalkens...
by putting him so far down the list that he'd never be elected.
Obviously, the party leadership doesn't appreciate all that he has done.
The effect that The Party for the Animals is already having...
is that all the animal protectors have moved higher up the candidate lists.
Just imagine what we'll do in office.
The other newcomer is The Party for the Animals.
And then you win, and we did.
The Party for the Animals rose from nothing to two seats now.
What was your first reaction? -For the first time in history...
there is a party in parliament that stands up exclusively for the animals.
This is a historic breakthrough and a clear sign from the voter...
that politics has neglected animals and not considered them in decisions.
The exit polls show there is an animal friendly majority in parliament.
Now things will change and we'll be at the forefront of it.
Two activists in parliament.
The media and their fellow MPs had to get used to it.
Marianne Thieme, party leader and whip for The Party for the Animals...
is off to discuss the Ministry of Agriculture's budget.
Thieme is ready to play hard ball. -Will you stand up for the animals?
Yes, because as far as this is concerned there is still so much to be done.
And the other parties won't be welcoming us.
How are the animals in parliament? -We have mice, but that's all.
And our party treats them well. -I mean The Party for the Animals.
You get used to anything, in the end. -But slowly, by the looks of it.
No, you get used to it. -It's a symptom of affluence.
But I'm happy for the animals. -Why a symptom of affluence?
If there aren't enough human problems we'll tackle animal problems.
Every time the word animal cropped up everybody would look at us.
Pay attention, animal girls. It's about animals.
He came to me because I'm friendly. -That's what humans say.
See what happens near a green leaf. -I'll put him outside.
I just wanted to show him this fuss. -You're so sentimental.
Aren't I just? -Yes, you are.
It would be better for the animals if Labour kept a straight back.
I had a Professor of Statistics who told me...
perhaps Mrs Thieme and Ouwehand shouldn't listen, but he told me...
If you shoot a hare in front of its head and behind its tail, economists call it dead.
But that doesn't seem to be the right conclusion. Furthermore...
it takes a while before the non-statisticians get it, too.
To make their colleagues take animal rights seriously...
they started to stir a fuss.
The Party for the Animals isn't afraid of asking questions.
On octopuses, a carnivorous Donald Duck or toys for pigs.
The Minister faced 196 questions. Enough for two more civil servants.
We knew we had to go about politics differently to the traditional parties.
The politics of compromises, bargaining and looking out for one's own interests.
We didn't feel comfortable with this and we decided not to join in.
Marianne Thieme is good for both animals and employment.
Answering all her parliamentary queries turns out to be a full time job.
Let's ask her a few questions. You asked so many questions...
in a year that they needed to hire two extra civil servants.
Yes, not very many, really. -You'd like to see more?
There are 3900 civil servants which means that 0,05 percent...
has been reserved for animal welfare. -That's 2000 Euros per set of questions.
And you do have a lot of questions? How many, so far?
They must be hard ones, more than 150.
A barrage of motions, elicited a statement from the parties...
on the promises they made in their own programmes.
No laughing, please, because we still have a lot of them to do.
Who is for the motion Ouwehand? -SP, The Greens, D66.
Party for the Animals. Rejected. -You put a motion forward.
One out of how many? -41, they're on the bio-industry.
On hunting for pleasure, laboratory animals and pets.
The motions were based on the electoral programmes of the other parties.
The motion was on the unsedated castration of piglets.
This is in the Labour programme so they were with you on this one.
You'd think so but they didn't vote for it.
Who is for number 168, the motion Ouwehand?
SP, The Greens, Party for the Animals, D66, rejected.
We debated for 20 hours on animal welfare, from goldfish to pigs.
From horses to laboratory monkeys, we discussed it all.
They use woolly language which leaves you oblivious of what they're thinking.
Voting is a great instrument in parliament.
It allows you to force the politicians to choose between against or for.
This clarifies what they really think and in the next elections...
the voters will know how to vote. -You want to help the animals.
Yes, and so I am. -No, they all voted against.
All you show is that they disagree with you But that's a poor result for the animals.
After we were elected, people were angry about how we went about politics.
After winning a few seats, they'd expected us to conform...
to how they debate in the House. It's called instrumental politics.
No instrumental politics of compromises but animal rights on the agenda.
That's what expressive politics are for. Get it on the agenda.
You won't achieve anything, said the politicians and journalists.
But scientists who have studied this have a different view.
Political scientist Simon Otjes, studied whether the themes...
of the Party for the Animals were discussed more often since its election.
The Parliamentary Proceedings show that this is a successful strategy.
There are more debates on agriculture and animal welfare, since the party entered parliament
It's not just because of The party of the Animals.
Apart from her own input, there is still more attention for animal welfare.
The strategy of the pacer in the marathon works and gets results.
Since the party joined the House, there are more motions on animal welfare.
The motions are entered by all the parties and that's the difference.
Only when other parties enter motions, will policies change.
It's important to know that other parties reject our motions.
Then these parties enter an identical motion, to get it accepted.
So, we are the only party that actively stimulates competition.
We're getting other parties to adopt the issues in our platform.
Gradually, the party was taken seriously and even admired.
But more importantly, animal welfare became a serious issue.
I recognize the SP when we were just in parliament, very enthusiastic.
They want change as soon as possible. -It's a one-issue party.
So, they're not interested in other subjects.
But very effective for the animals and they do what they promise.
They are an improvement because other parties have views on animal rights...
but they never did anything about it. We, from D66, did do a lot.
But now, because they won't let go, far more is achieved.
A pacer in the marathon. But in which marathon?
Is it temporary or the start of something greater?
What's the goal and how fast will it be achieved?
Historian Maartje Janse recognizes how the party goes about politics...
from the 19th century emancipation movement that fought against slavery.
The Party for the Animal's approach to the debate on animal welfare...
resembles the debates on the abolishment of slavery.
Because people hadn't thought about how improper slavery was.
People were laughed at then and so were the prohibitionists.
These things weren't issues, but several decades later...
people started to support the movement.
I recognise this process of awareness from the 19th century.
That doesn't mean that it will therefore be a political success.
Other scientists, such as sociologist Paul Schnabel...
from the social planning office, see a change of attitude towards animals.
We see more animal friendliness despite mass production...
and things are still done in a way that is unacceptable to animal and man.
But our sensitivity about being cruel to animals...
or neglecting animals has risen dramatically.
You can call it animal emancipation.
The Party for the Animals is clearly a form of this.
So is the assignment of animal rights and the care for animal welfare.
People always see impossibilities. We can't abolish slavery...
because the economy will collapse. The same applied to child labour.
But, it was possible. The same applies to handing out animal rights.
To respect animals for who they are, for what they are.
To let animals display their natural behaviour, that's not revolutionary.
It should go without saying and that's what we're after.
Philosopher Peter Singer, the first man who wrote about animal liberation...
follows The Party for the Animals closely.
I believe the bio-industry must be abolished.
Just like Singer, the party wants the bio-industry abolished.
But that's not all, animals should live according to their nature.
The calves are with the cow.
If you were to ask the citizens, they'd think calves are suckled by cows.
But that's not the case in Holland. -No, it isn't.
We leave them with the cow. Just like they have horns, they have calves.
It's fantastic. -Your cows look healthy.
They don't have any sores, the calves don't have scour.
They don't need antibiotics. No udder infections.
Hardly ever. -Hardly ever.
In the winter they're in the stable but when the ground is alright they go out.
As soon as it's freezing they can go outside again.
We believe that you should think from an animal's perspective.
If you want to produce milk, your system must suit the animals.
Normally, the animals have to adapt to what the humans find handy.
Animals are living creatures that have feelings and they have to come first.
If you have systems to keep cattle, they must be adapted to the animals.
However serious animal cruelty may be, it is usually denied...
when tackling it conflicts with human interests.
This became clear when the party's first bill was discussed.
A bill aimed at banning unsedated ritual slaughter.
It's a huge success for Marianne Thieme. Her Party for the Animals...
which has two seats, has convinced a majority in parliament.
It's a sensitive issue. Orthodox Jews and Muslims only eat meat...
that was killed by slitting the throat without sedation.
Do animals suffer if they're slaughtered without sedation?
The answer seems obvious, but scientific evidence was required.
Scientific evidence is crucial. They say that it's the emotion.
All that blood looks awful and slitting a throat sounds bad.
But it looks far worse than it is in reality.
So, scientific evidence is crucial.
Now it's about whether freedom of religion is more important than animal suffering.
We spoke to all the authoritative scientists in Europe...
who specialize in unsedated ritual slaughter.
We showed them undercover images that were made in Dutch abattoirs.
We asked them what the images depict.
Do the animals suffer? The answer was unanimously: Yes, they suffer terribly.
An overwhelming majority in parliament voted for the bill.
But the Senate wasn't ready for this, yet.
The conflict with the freedom of religion took over.
And the science behind the bill was refuted.
We won't agree on animal cruelty. This wasn't done fairly.
Other Western scientists, you can read it and I can prove it...
claim it's healthier and better and that the animals suffer less.
Besides, in both the Muslim as the Jewish holy Scriptures...
there is no rule stating that you can't use anaesthetics.
So, these are human traditions of which you can hardly say...
that it's about religious freedom and even if it was...
if a religious book says that you must stone homosexuals or adulterers...
in our society we'd say: This is the limit, you don't have this freedom.
Measuring pain is highly complicated. There are numerous reports on it.
TNO attacked Wageningen's reports as being unscientific.
So, everyone has their own definition.
So, this will continue? -Yes, it will.
In the discussion on animal welfare they want proof that animals can suffer.
Animals and humans hardly differ. The difference in DNA is minimal.
But they want reports on whether animals can suffer, are they conscious beings?
I say: Give the animal the benefit of the doubt.
If you're not sure, perhaps it can suffer so treat it humanely.
A party for animals is put away as a one-issue party.
The Party for the Animals focuses on one thing and this makes us unique.
Vote for The Party for the Animals.
We're heading for Meppel with its 1100 sows and 8000 pigs for consumption.
Please put the post in the ground to let them know that they're not rid of us.
No. I'm getting started.
The Party for the Animals is also a party for humans.
Because factory farming makes both animals and humans ill.
If you talk about mega stables, you must mean huge buildings.
And I just saw huge flats where they keep humans.
That's also mega, flats, stables. -Certainly.
Offices and it's all big and mega. -We need to get rid of mega.
Don't bother with this small farmer. -Do 10,000 pigs make up a small farm?
In 2011, people in Holland died of Q fever and thousands fell ill...
where goats were farmed intensively. The party pointed out the connection.
And the government's failure to inform the public adequately.
This didn't go down well.
The fiercest opponent is The Party for the Animals.
They blame the Minister of culpable death...
for not warning people of infected companies on time.
It's not a coincidence that the worst Q fever epidemic is in Holland.
The only country in the world where people die due to lack of information.
Information the government withheld from high-risk groups.
As we speak there are pregnant women living next to a goat farm...
without knowing whether it's infected and therefore a health hazard.
Purely for economical reasons. -Mrs Thieme said to the press...
culpable death. This is an indictment...
that you have to prove. As long as animals can't file charges...
you should take the responsibility of...
either retracting these words or of following it through.
She followed through. The Party for the Animals...
and the victims asked the ombudsman to investigate the matter.
The conclusion was that lives could have been saved, had people known...
which firms were contaminated.
Animals are the most oppressed beings on Earth.
Both in the bio-industry as in nature.
More and more of their habitat is being demolished.
The Party for the Animals fights this too.
We stand for keeping the Earth liveable but our government has different ideas.
They will tear down nature if it bothers the economy.
They are cutting down expenses on nature and we are protesting against this.
By doing something constructive like planting a forest...
which animals can use and where new ecosystems will develop.
But it's also an act of symbolic resistance against this government.
We've demonstrated that you can obtain 23,000 trees, within a week.
People are prepared to pay for it. It's a shame Bleker doesn't realise...
that nature is the basis of our existence and that we must invest in it.
You might be proving him right though, if private persons are doing it for him.
Yes, but this is a tiny initiative compared to what needs doing.
The biodiversity has declined dramatically in the last few decades.
We need private support but even more we need government support.
Not just to enjoy the nature for recreational use.
But it's essential to a good climate and agriculture.
We can't do without nature. It's worth its weight in gold.
It's starting to rain which is good. It needs a bit of water.
Although, it's pretty boggy as it is. -One down, 23,000 to go.
Yes, let's get cracking.
The party stages all kinds of protests outside of parliament.
Supported by our scientific office, the Nicolaas G Pierson Foundation.
We initiate research into animals, nature and the environment.
But we also translate scientific research into cinematic documents.
Our first large project was Meat the Truth.
It's gone round the world in fifteen different languages.
The follow-up is Sea the Truth.
If we want to help the environment, we must stop eating meat or cut down.
Because factory farming is a greater pollutant than traffic.
That's the message in a documentary by The Party for the Animals.
Thanks to The Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore...
that the world has woken up and that's why he won the Nobel prize.
But he forgot something.
If we all skipped meat for one day, all the government's domestic climate goals...
would be realised immediately. All the climate goals.
Isn't it spectacular that one step which you can take as an individual...
can have such an impact?
The connection between factory farming and the climate was new, to some.
Deforestation is largely caused by factory farming, Mr Blom.
I'm surprised how The Party for the Animals...
can interrupt with a subject that has nothing to do with my text.
Forgive me for having no idea what factory farming has to do with...
deforestation wherever it may occur. -That doesn't reflect well on you.
Probably not but I honestly don't know.
There were people who doubted the scientifically documented film.
I'm also going to make a film: A Cow's Truth by Annie.
A cow's truth? -By Annie and with other figures.
The farmers keep adapting the stables and outside of the stables.
And you can make a film like this but there are so many other figures.
You say the facts aren't correct. -So does Wageningen.
The Minister of Agriculture asked Wageningen to check the figures.
She said they were wrong but the University said they were correct.
And that factory farming has a huge impact on the greenhouse effect.
To find the facts, we also called the University of Wageningen.
They have checked all the figures in the film and they're all correct.
So, you'll have to make your film by yourself.
And Al Gore acknowledged the effect of factory farming on the climate.
If there is something wrong and you work quickly...
you can be sure there will be questions in parliament within a week.
Large problems are being tackled, which was unthinkable before.
On the tenth anniversary of the party there were elections again.
The Party for the Animals has the fastest growing number of members.
In the polls, she's set to gain another seat.
The party is still the pacer in the marathon for animal rights.
The other parties don't really care. They're not very knowledgeable.
They say: What can I say? Which is good because we'll tell them what to say.
Recently, in one of the Q fever debates, Mrs Arib...
from the Labour Party pleaded for an inquiry into factory farming.
She stopped explaining why and said: I sound like The Party for the Animals.
That's nice.
The party scores well in the voter's guide.
The parliamentary faction votes as its supporters would.
Not just on animal matters but on all matters...
according to the shadow house.
They compare the voting behaviour of the fraction to that of their voters.
The Party for the Animals has a 89 percent match.
From our founding programme we distilled four basic principles.
Compassion, sustainability, personal freedom and personal responsibility.
We test all proposals against these 4 principles.
And voters who don't know these principles but watch how we vote...
or other MPs who watch us, see a very consistent line develop.
This translates into 'a common sense party' or 'we know how you'll vote'.
Far more predictable than other parties who sometimes vote for Kunduz...
then against Kunduz. They're caught up in their internal political discussions.
Based on the four principles, we have internalised a party culture...
that is workable for ourselves and recognisable for voters.
The party is also represented in the Senate, the provinces...
the councils and district water boards.
We're in the councils because national policies are realised at council level.
I'm an activist, nothing for a while and then a politician.
We see that other parties in the council are subscribing to our subjects.
I try to connect with other parties but I stick to our ideals.
CO2 policies, eco zones, construction decisions, arranging public space.
I can't help making other parties feel jumpy.
But it's very important that it happens.
The others are left scratching behind their ears. Why didn't we think of that?
We're unleashing a revolution. We've been around for ten years now.
We're still growing and we keep getting more done, which is great.
The first session of the Dutch parliament after the summer recess.
Soon the Queen will read the policy statement, all parties are present.
Including The Party for the Animals and its chairman, Marianne Thieme.
The first animal rights party to be elected to parliament in the world.
The Party for the Animals is also known abroad.
When the Dalai Lama visited parliament, he told Marianne Thieme...
that he'd like to vote for The Party for the Animals.
The party supports campaigns such as Meat Free Monday by Paul McCartney.
The former Minister from India, Maneka Gandhi sees the party...
as a role model for her own country, the largest democracy.
The Dutch Party for the Animals isn't the only one in the world anymore.
The example is being followed in ten other countries.
The struggle against bullfighting is an important theme.
It would be great for the protection of animal rights in Europe...
if for example Holland, Spain and Portugal would work together.
It would be ideal for these countries to represent animal rights.
The Dutch Party for the Animals is an example to us in Spain.
They have proven that you can defend animal rights in parliament.
We see that we set an example for many people.
That comes with responsibility. If we mess things up here...
that will have repercussions on other animal activists in the world.
So, it's a heavy responsibility and a great challenge, too.
In 2012, the party still holds two seats in parliament.
Will Frank Wassenberg get to occupy the third seat, this time?
The programme directly opposes other parties' programmes.
We have a food crisis, a financial crisis, we have a climate crisis.
They're all connected. Again, we're the pacer in the marathon.
All the other parties say we must beat the crisis by growing even further.
We say that growth is the problem so let's overcome this in a healthy way.
That's not by stimulating growth.
This election will probably be like the last one.
SGP has one extra seat. The Party for the Animals...
two, two, so that remains unchanged.
For a moment, it seemed as if they won gold.
But, while many parties loose, The Party for the Animals stays put.
We've held out with two seats for the third time in a row.
And now the animal unfriendly majority is gone, which means...
that where as in the past our motions were always rejected.
Now, when we return to parliament our seats will be worth twice as much.
First, I'd like your attention for the person...
who, exactly ten years ago today...
entered the chamber of commerce in Amsterdam somewhat hastily.
She asked: Is anybody else here to found a political party?
Could you let me go first in that case as I'm in a hurry?
Ladies and gentlemen, may I have a big hand for Marianne Thieme.
I fully agree, that it's a shame that a party for the animals is needed.
But fortunately, more and more Dutch are standing up for animal rights.
We'd like nothing better than to become superfluous...
but we will not rest or give in until that day has come.
We're very impatient but we have a lot of stamina.
We're ambitious to make the world compassionate and sustainable.
I hope that we'll follow the new venue together because that is promising.
Thank you.
I have a strong feeling that this will be the century of the animals.