For as long as the residents of Qatar can remember, the normalization and prevalence of animal cruelty within the country has always been a prominent issue. Notorious examples include the following: the ‘pet souk’ in Souq Waqif, mass killings of street cats subsidized or ensured fully by the government, the standardization of owning exotic pets, the lack of legal action towards animal persecutors and much more. It is also important to note the absence of animal shelters in Qatar, and the lack of governmental intervention in the preservation of animal welfare. The Qatari government moreover fails to subsidize the privately owned veterinary clinics and centers dispersed around the country, and therefore a simple trip to the vet can be financially debilitating for distressed pet owners. What this often leads to is the neglect of harmless animals that are then forced to withstand the merciless and scorching heat of Qatar’s desert weather. This large-scale neglect towards animal welfare, unfortunately, reinforces the notion that animals are merely inferior to humans and it is hence illegitimate to punish individuals for the ill-treatment of a ‘sub-human’. This reality poses a myriad of questions channeled towards the Qatari government in conversation with the theme of environmental humanities, morality, human and non human relations and the channeling of responsibility and blame. 

Qatar’s case study functions as an exemplar or a benchmark to study human and non human relations within the region. This is highly relevant to our course, the environmental humanities, as it depicts the inner human dialogue with other ‘lesser’ species. For example, what does the normalization of animal cruelty say about how we, as a society, feel about animals? Do we lack genuine empathy or a genuine interest in the particular case of animal cruelty? Why do governmental and authoritative bodies, especially the Ministry of Municipality and Environment’s Department of Animal Resources, lack the need to showcase solidarity or even compassion towards the animals residing within the country? What has been previously done in the past to minimize or completely terminate animal cruelty? These questions in their nature function to address systemic flaws and the whole rejection of categorizing animals as legitimate victims. Our current reality in which the pet souk remains to be in business, exotic pets remain to be the norm and moreover provide the owner with a status symbol, and veterinary clinics remain to be extremely pricey, ultimately illustrate the continual passivity governments demonstrate towards such horrid conditions. Is it merely due to the commercial benefits, or the lack of commercial losses, that the government gains that plays a role in this passivity? Or is it an issue that transcends into the spectrum of morality and moral obligations? With that said, do we lack morals due to our conscious apathy towards said issues? Are we, as the people of the country, or the government, as the legitimate establishment, to blame?