Animal Person

On Tradition, Cockfighting and Education

"A Ban on Cockfighting, but the Tradition Lives On," by Adam B. Ellick in today's New York Times, raises several important questions for me.

Let's deconstruct:

• I was left wondering whether when cockfighting is made illegal, there's any kind of humane education component to the law. Unless there is an education component, where the current and future generations of chicken torturers have the opportunity to examine what they're doing and why, and learn about who chickens are and what they're capable of (i.e., sentience), you're only treating the symptom. You can chase people who have already bred and are already using the chickens all day long, but until they realize that tradition isn't a valid justification for their form of "entertainment" and profit, eradicating cockfighting will never happen. It'll keep getting passed from generation to generation, as if it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
• If you tell people they're not allowed to continue a brutal practice they think they're entitled to practice due to "tradition" or "culture" (translation: there's no good reason to do it other than they want to), of course you should plan on them going underground with it. Laws should come with budgets that make their enforcement possible.
• Not surprisingly, the article has references to "animal rights advocates," as if we're the only ones who object to cockfighting. But I'm pretty sure the average veal-eating, purebreed-owning person on my street has a problem with it, too.
• Finally, you know how when there's pressure to close a Greyhound track, racing supporters cry: But what about all of the jobs that will be lost? Here's a great response by an animal control investigator after the courts in New Mexico dismissed a lawsuit by the New Mexico Gamefowl Association claiming economic devastation after the ban: “You need to go find a job at Wal-Mart." There's easy money in every community, and often it is made at someone else's expense. Children need to be having that discussion with their parents and at school so they don't grow up believing they can harm whomever they want, even to support their families.
  

Ed Lowry, a director of the New Mexico Gamefowl Association said, “A gamecock shows me what an American should be like. You defend to the death.” No, Mr. Lowry, the gamecock defends to the death, and you walk away, making money from his suffering, his blood and his mutilation. Is that what an American should be like?

On Torture Not Fit for Animal or Plant

First let me say that everyone is fine. No one was better prepared than I for seizing dogs and vomiting cats. The thunderous display meant to mimic the experience of being on a battlefield was over by 11pm and we went to the baseball field to run like the wind at 6:30 this morning. Two hounds and a kitty are napping on their respective beds in my office and all is right with the world.

All is at least much better for Ingrid Betancourt, as you probably know. We may never know exactly how she was rescued or whether money was paid or any part of the rescue was staged, but one thing we do know is that during her six-year captivity she was in "inhumane conditions" and subject to "casual sadism," according to "Betancourt Describes Sadistic Treatment at Hands of Captors."

She was treated "abominably" and said: "I wouldn't have given the treatment I had to an animal, perhaps not even to a plant."

That's good news . . . I think.

I find the plant part to be strange, as there is a rather significant difference between plants and animals, and it's the difference that matters most if you're going to compare how they'd react to being tortured: sentience. Meanwhile, the fact that she even said she wouldn't do such things (whatever they were, and we know they weren't good) to an animal makes me say: Why would you even say that? What would you do to an animal, then?

When people use the I-wouldn't-even-do-that-to-an-animal line, it scares me. It tells me that they draw some kind of line in the sand between torture that's okay and torture that's so terrible that even animals don't deserve it. But what is it about sentient nonhumans that makes them somehow inherently deserving of at least some level of mistreatment?

Nothing.

But it's difficult to come down hard on Betancourt or anyone else who has been programmed since birth (I'm assuming she has) to view animals as resources and commodities and lunch and shoes. Yes, some of us one day came to the realization that what we do to sentient nonhumans is unwarranted and unjust. But most people are simply being who they were brought up to be, and taking their cues from the media and the rest of their culture. They're simply following the path of least resistance.

And it's up to us to introduce them to a different path.

What are YOUR Thoughts on Rights for Great Apes?

As you probably know, "Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans."

Yes, the basis is their genetic similarity to us, and it should be enough that they are subjects of their own lives and are sentient.

But I want a ban on Greyhound racing. Sure, I ultimately want Greyhounds and all other sentient nonhumans to have the right to not be the used by humans. And I work toward that in my daily vegan outreach. Abolishing Greyhound racing, however, does eliminate a use of a sentient nonhuman and should also dramatically decrease the breeding of Greyhounds, as they currently have two uses: showing and racing. Eliminate one use, and the incentive to breed for that use is eliminated as well.

Now back to great apes. Under the Spanish law, "Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code." I think that's great. What I find fascinating is that people against rights for great apes call this a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, I'm sure many people who consider themselves abolitionists would also call this a dangerous precedent because the reason for the granting of the rights would be speciesist.

Back to Greyhound racing. If the ban is broadened to the tracks in Massachusetts (and it might be in November), that ban would largely be achieved because of the cruelty argument. Though there are definitely people dealing with this issue who think we have no right to race the dogs, there is a considerable suffering contingent. But as I have said: I don't care why the industry fails and the dogs are no longer raced--I just want to see an end to Greyhound racing.

Is that wrong of me?

If we are to see an end to the use of great apes in Spain, even though it's not for the reason we'd like to see, if indeed great apes will no longer be used, shouldn't we be pleased about that part of the outcome? After all, we don't know for certain whether it will be easier or more difficult to get rights for anyone else thereafter.

Will banning Greyhound racing make it more difficult or easier to ban horse racing? Will it have any impact on our efforts to ban other uses of sentient nonhumans? And if it might, do we not support a ban because we think it might make another ban in the future more difficult to achieve? Do we sacrifice the animals who are close to being free of us because we think others down the road might never be free of us?

What do you think?

On Paul Watson and Property Damage

In fact, it is only through diversity that any movement can survive, and this diversity demands tolerance of all participating groups within the spectrum of action for each other. It makes little sense for a mainstream group to waste resources and time attacking the ALF or the ELF. There is nothing that a mainstream group can do to prevent actions by covert activist groups or individuals. Agreement to disagree is the only solution. When challenged to justify an action by a covert group, a mainstream group should reply by saying that it is unfortunate that the problem or the threat is so extreme that some people have been moved to take extreme measures to address it.

                --Paul Watson, "ALF and ELF--Terrorism Is as Terrorism Does" in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

The mainstream world got a small dose of Paul Watson in Newsweek's "The Whale Man," by Jimmy Langman.

You have argued that your tactics are legal. How so?

We are upholding the U.N. Charter of Nature and operating within the principles of this charter, which allows for non-governmental organizations to intervene to uphold international conservation law. For instance, in 1986 we sunk half of Iceland's whaling fleet, and that might sound like it's illegal, but I did go to Reykjavik to demand that they charge me and they refused to do so. Because they knew that to put me on trial would be to put themselves on trial.

So here's my question: If you believe that property damage (you know, like sinking half a whaling fleet) is violence and you don't believe violence has a place in the movement, what about property damage in the service of upholding the law? Is that okay? Does the law have anything to do with how you feel about property damage?

On Blaming Animal Rights Activists for Alligator Attacks

Bea, who also lives in Florida, suggested I write about Kasey Edwards, the young man who lost his arm to an alligator earlier this week.

First let me say that he's 18-years old. That's my biggest problem with quoting him as if he knows what he's talking about. There's something vaguely unfair about deconstructing what he says. Remember what came out of your mouth when you were 18-years old?

What I do feel comfortable doing is saying that drinking alcohol and "hanging out" along canals that are known to be the homes or travelways of alligators is not a good idea. Even without the alcohol it isn't a good idea. And no one should be shocked to discover that when they go to the home or travelway of alligators, there might be alligators there. Each week there is an alligator story on the news, complete with anchor people laughing and joking after the clip of the alligator getting tied up, having her mouth duct taped, and then fighting for her life as she's dragged onto some truck and it's announced, much to everyone's relief I'm sure, that the alligator was "destroyed" (for, you  know, being an alligator). The alligators are vilified, all because we have pushed them and pushed them out of their homes, and then some of us are ignorant enough to actually try to feed them, thereby giving them mixed signals (sound familiar? Can you say bears?), and then when they approach people or try to catch a meal in the form of a dog (they're predators, remember), they are killed.

Alligators can't win.

[Edwards] blamed what he feels are the misguided efforts of animal-rights activists for allowing the Florida alligator population to mushroom in the past 10 years. With so many gators competing for limited resources, they’ve become much more aggressive, he said.

So the never-ending development of Florida has nothing to do with the problem? Animal rights activists are the problem? Going to one of the few places where alligators can be alligators without people disturbing them isn't part of the problem? I think Edwards is right to blame people. But I think he's pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction.

[Edwards also] said that the real issue is the overpopulation of alligators. Florida wildlife authorities issue 3,000 permits a year for alligator hunters, he said, but animal-rights activists buy as many as two-thirds of the permits to prevent the alligators from being killed.

Edwards has his facts wrong about the animal rights activists, the number of permits, and the number of alligators killed, and it would be nice if the Today Show did a follow up to that effect. According to Florida Fish and Wildlife,

on average, 70 percent of all hunting tags purchased are turned in as required with proof of a gator kill. 82 percent of the tags were used last year . . . .

The state points out Lake Okeechobee, where Edwards was bitten, is experiencing record drought. Large gators are concentrated in canals. Casey Edwards dove in at two in the morning when gators are most active, most dangerous.

Write the Today Show and tell them that Edwards (whose name was indeed spelled with at K by one source, and a C by the other), is incorrect. He put himself in a very dangerous position, was injured, and someone else was killed because of what he did.

On Greyhounds and the Economy

Supporters of a ban on Greyhound racing in Massachusetts have submitted 45,000 signatures (11,099 were needed) and in November the people will decide whether or not to shut down Raynham-Taunton and Wonderland Greyhound Parks (yes, "park" is part of the name). Or at least you'd think that's how it would happen, but a lawsuit, courtesy of the dog track owners, is pending.

If on the ballot and approved, the measure would close the tracks down by January 1, 2010. George Carney has been the owner of the Raynham-Taunton track for 40 years.

If the court does not block the measure this year, Carney said he will wage a multimillion dollar advertising campaign to swing voters against the measure. He said that at his track there are about 650 full- and part-time workers, jobs that would be lost if the ban was approved.

"I feel the economy is in our favor," Carney said.

Of course, a bill to add slots at the tracks to prop them up is already in the works, and a plea has been made to supporters of racing "for dramatic action to reverse a years-long slide in attendance at races."

Though public opinion appears to be against the dog tracks (evidenced by the dwindling attendance), fears about the economy are going to work for the track owners. They will use the unstable economy and their 650 full- and part-time workers to their advantage. "You don't want people to lose their jobs in an already terrible economy, do you? Do you want to be responsible for that?"

What I would want to ask each voter in Massachusetts is: Would you want your dog to be kenneled, lying on shredded newspaper, and muzzled for some or all of 22 hours a day, possibly drugged, forced to run when someone else wants her to run, denied veterinary treatment as it's cost-prohibitive, and then "discarded" when she wasn't fast enough? Forget about the broken bones, cardiac arrest and paralysis. Forget the killing of thousands of dogs who were never fast enough to make it to the track. Forget the mass graves full of dogs and the dogs found, injured or dead, with their ears cut off (that's where their tattoos are). Do you think it is right to force your dog to race because you want her to race? Because you might profit?

If the answer were No, then they'd have no choice but to vote to shut down the tracks (if they wanted to act in alignment with their beliefs).

But if the answer were Yes, I'd ask: Do you think it's right to hold a human person captive and force her to race because you want her to race? Because you might profit? And if not, why not?

Because dogs aren't human? True, true. But so what? Might humans and dogs have something in common that's crucial to this issue?

I think I can name one thing: They have an interest in not being held captive by someone with the intention of profiting from their natural inclinations or their skills. And if you agree with that, you'd have to vote to shut down the tracks if you wanted to align your actions with your beliefs.

People can get new jobs all by themselves. They can relocate if they choose to. They can get trained for a new career if they have the inclination, the time and the resources (and some programs are free!). But the dogs cannot choose to leave the tracks. They need the voters to speak for their interests.

What is an Animal Sanctuary?

Who ever thought Florida would be ahead of the curve when it comes to animal protection?

When I first heard that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) proposed a definition of "sanctuary" that includes a prohibition on breeding, selling or buying captive wildlife, as well as contact between the public and the wildlife, I was pleased.

Don't think for a moment I missed the part about "wildlife" and the reality that farmed animal sanctuaries and companion animal sanctuaries were excluded, but I think that this is a small, positive step. As the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida (yes, I know they do some welfare work, and no, I don't agree with all of their campaigns) writes:

The new definition would help to identify genuine sanctuaries in Florida who provide care for abused or abandoned animals, where the welfare of each individual animal is the primary consideration.

The FWC is accepting public input on the proposed changes. Please contact the commission and express your strong support of the proposed new rule– "68A-6.0025 Sanctuaries"– and in particular it's prohibition of breeding captive wildlife.

Contact:
E-mail comments to: rulechanges@MyFWC.com
(type "captive wildlife" in the subject line)

Mail written comments to:
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Attn: Capt. Linda Harrison
620 Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1600

The deadline for submitting public comments is July 4.

I think about the Busch Wildlife Sanctuary, which has educational programs that involve taking the wildlife out of their permanent home at the sanctuary for television appearances or "outreach" programs, and touts "interaction with live animals" (at, for example, the Wildlife Encounters Summer Camp). As you may know, Busch is also connected to Jack Hanna.

I am willing to bet my net worth that if indeed the new definition is adopted, somehow Busch will be grandfathered in or by some other means deemed a legitimate sanctuary despite the fact that it doesn't meet the definition's requirements. (Busch apparently does do great rehabilitation work with wildlife, but I don't think it's a sanctuary, and I don't think it provides--or can provide--adequate space for some of its residents. The one or two panthers come to mind, in what is basically a cage smaller than my living room.)

I know that sounds negative and cynical, but I've been in Florida long enough, where by the way a recently-proposed statute that would prohibit sexual contact between people and animals was NOT passed (because it was not heard in the House), and I have yet to see an instance where sentient nonhumans were protected when there was a reason sentient humans might be able to benefit from their use.

Does anyone have a sanctuary definition in their state's law that I might be able to use for comparison? I wonder if this type of action has a significant positive effect on wildlife. There are few things I like less than putting my time, energy and money behind something--only to have it pass--and then find out later that I made a mistake. (Can you say ban on gestation crates?)

Undercover "Free-Range" Egg Video

Now let me get this straight: They're not in cages, therefore  . . .

Thanks to Roger for directing me to an expose on "cage-free" and "free-range" eggs with the RSPCA's Freedom Food label. In March of 2007, I wrote a post for supervegan.com ("Freedom Food Outed in the UK") about the neglect of pigs, turkeys and ducks who were supposedly "raised to higher welfare standards," according to chef Jamie Oliver (and the Freedom Food site), but this video demonstrates that laying hens aren't any better off than the animals in last year's undercover video.

Not only is the British public misled about the welfare of the animals they are paying someone to slaughter, but they're also paying a premium to be misled. Oh, and one of their favorite celebrity chefs, who gassed day-old chicks on his show in order to reveal the truth about what happens to the males in the egg industry (and who at no point objects to that practice), is one of their top spokespeople.

Check out the article and slideshow that accompany the video, and the next time someone tells you they care about chickens and pay extra to prove how much they care, sent them to this expose, Cage Free Eggs: Behind the Myth, or "Can you tell the difference?"

I'm sure that most consumers (and most vegetarians), are unaware that male chicks are killed and that eliminating cages doesn't result in a great life for hens. And I'm not sure whether vegetarians, who still eat eggs and dairy because they think no one got hurt or died for them, are thinking things through. I was one of them, and I'm not mocking them; I'm simply making an observation. What did I think was going to happen to the hens? Did I think they'd live their lives out, with veterinary care if needed, even after they were no longer able to produce eggs? What was I thinking?

Well, considering how much cogitating my obsessive mind does, and the fact that I nevertheless failed to think the egg situation through to its logical end, I can easily see how the average person--and even the average vegetarian--neglects several significant issues. It's up to us, then, to inform them as well as help them see what's in front of them that they're not seeing (e.g., all of the animals will be killed). I'm not sure what the ethos of today's vegetarian is, but if it has anything to do with harm without necessity or killing without necessity, I think it's safe to say that eggs should be off their list.

PPS Calls for Change in Direction of Vegan Advocacy

Peaceful Prairie is calling for a "Change in the Direction of Vegan Advocacy," which I think many of us have intuitively begun for our own reasons. The change has two components: language and strategy.

Twenty years ago, vegan advocates could use the term "factory farming" because, at the time, there was no mass marketed "humane" animal farming alternative that could be readily found at fast food restaurants, grocery stores, etc.

Now, sometimes you really are talking about what is known as "factory farming" for whatever reason. But if you're not, and if you believe there's no such thing as humane farming, you do your own message a disservice by using "factory farming" as your descriptor because that creates an opening for the acceptance of an alternative.

Furthermore, the focus on "meat" is a mistake, as it leads people directly to lacto-ovo vegetarianism, where we've all seen people spend years, if not decades. I've often spoken about how I like to begin with eggs and products made from milk in my advocacy because I think that's more efficient and effective. If you educate someone about what is involved in milk production and they object to it, they have nowhere to go. They likely already know that animals we use for food are treated horribly and unjustly, so if you begin by discussing the animals most people don't know are treated horribly and unjustly, you've just given the person you're speaking with the final bit of information they need that will position them to eliminate all food products made from sentient nonhumans. (Not that they'll do that overnight).

The PPS statement expresses a similar sentiment, but also gets into the more basic notion that:

The strategy of prioritizing our anti-meat message over anti-dairy and eggs has failed the animals miserably.

We all know that this really is a matter of education. My guess is that most vegetarians simply have no idea what it takes to produce their beloved cheese, and would in fact never think of cheese as a sibling of the product called "veal" that they vilify.

I do understand that there is a difference in the way we (aesthetically, emotionally and mentally) experience flesh on a plate and cheese on a pizza. But I think that the difference is largely learned as it's associated with the source of the food and what occurred at the point of origin (i.e., they myth that someone died for steak, but not for cheese), and I think it can be unlearned. But not by itself.

And that's where we come in. Send your "conscientious omnivores" to The "Humane" Farming Myth, send your consumers of cage-free eggs to "Can You Tell the Difference?" and don't forget the "Happy Cows: Behind the Myth" slideshow at HumaneMyth.org for your pizza and ice cream lovers.

On Horse Slaughter and Confusion About Animal Rights

I used to think that most people knew the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. In my world, if you ask someone what animal rights is, they might not get it right, as they'll say something about their dog voting or driving a car, but they do understand that rights is different from welfare in that welfare means treating animals better.

Why is it, then, that from what I have seen in The New York Times, the Washington Post, and on the AP wire (and deconstructed for two years), confusion abounds. (In July of 2007, I wrote what has become my most popular post: NYT Thoroughly Confused About Animal Rights.)

In the AP's "Horse slaughterhouse's reopening unlikely," by Joseph Sjostrom, we learn that Cavel International's horse slaughter plant in DeKalb could reopen for slaughter if the meat was for pet food, but not if the meat was for human consumption.

Let's deconstruct:

• That's the jaw-dropping part of the ban on horse slaughter. It's not slaughtering them that's bad, it's slaughtering them then eating them that's bad. But I thought the ban was supported because horses have a special place in American culture and we love them and we need to honor them and not disrespect and degrade them (not to mention torture them) by lining them up and killing them for any reason.
• If that doesn't send enough of a mixed message for you, I give you the mind-numbing reference to "animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States," which is oddly followed by "Animal welfare activists argued that horses are companion animals that suffer cruelty in the transportation and slaughtering process."
  
  • I wonder what the relationship is between animal rights and animal welfare, according to Sjostrom. For instance, what's an example of a welfare group?
  • Here's what I don't understand: Journalists are supposed to be detail-oriented, and their fact-checkers are supposed to make sure the details are correct. Given that, why do we see--not on blogs (though it's there, too), but in the mainstream media, that HSUS is an animal rights group? It's not as if HSUS is some obscure, under-funded, loosely-organized bunch of animal people who don't know how to use the media, reach out to the public, or build a website.
  • How do I not mention the "that" in reference to the horses?
  • I'm not sure if activists argued that horses are "companion animals." Did they? And if so, did anyone challenge that notion? I don't want horses to be slaughtered any more than I want cows to be slaughtered, but we should recognize that horses are treated far more like commodities than pets by us.

What do you suppose we can do to help neutralize the misinformation that reaches the public as legitimate, trusted journalism?

Because I'm a writer by trade, I of course think we should all write. We should write letters to editors, we should write opinion pieces, and we should write articles and books. And we should step out of the world of animal people--and especially vegans. If you're a vegan, I'm not sure if it matters to me why you made that choice. And I certainly don't want to spend time arguing with you when I could be writing a book or recording a series of podcasts that might help nonvegans realize that sentient nonhumans aren't ours to use.

I think we have to take some responsibility for the confusion demonstrated by the mainstream media, or at the very least we have to do something about it by trying our best to catch each moment of misinformation, and clarify it. We won't always get published, we won't always be heard, but nothing will happen if we don't at least try.

Stein and LaVeck Launch New Website

Jenny Stein and James LaVeck, of Tribe of Heart have launched a one-stop shop for advocacy for animals at HumaneMyth.org and I encourage everyone to spend some time there. In my opinion, it's the most focused, user-friendly treatment (on the Internet) of what we do to animals we've decided to use as food. It's accessible in language and design, and it deals with the topics that at least this vegan talks about many times a week: "humane" farming, the reality that there's more suffering than most people could ever imagine in the "production" of a glass of milk, and the reality, despite what some advocacy groups tell the public, that cage-free eggs aren't cruelty-free.

I particularly like the section "Farmed Animal Experts Speak Out." There's no advocate more powerful than a convert, so I've always been partial to Howard Lyman's story. He makes me feel hopeful for people of my parents' generation and I just might see if I can pay him to go to New York and school my father. (I think I just found a new business idea for the former cattle rancher!)

"Deconstructing the Humane Myth in the Media" is of course my favorite section, and it's loaded with excerpts from mainstream and not-so-mainstream articles, juxtaposed with a brief "Humane Myth Analysis" to aid in the development of critical thinking.

For your daily activism, there are downloadable resources, including entire slideshows as well as leaflets (you can also purchase ready-made trifold handouts in "Gear Up").

For me, this site is realistic. It deals with the topics I get asked about every day. No one has ever asked me about property rights, and though they are certainly a root cause of our use and horrendous treatment of animals, I spend most of my time talking about--in one way or another--why the phrase "humane farming" is an oxymoron, and why if you don't want to hurt animals you shouldn't be eating them.

Of course, I'm constantly sending people to Peaceful Prairie (and check out what Michele Alley-Grubb has to say in "Farmed Animal Experts Speak Out"), and now I have another place to send well-meaning people who are trying very hard to find a way to make their consumption of sentient nonhumans acceptable (in their own minds).

The conclusion you must reach--meaning there's no way around it, not I'm telling you what to conclude--is that there's simply no way to create sentient nonhumans and entirely take over their lives only to kill them, and then describe that process with the adjective "humane." And for those who say:

What about the small farmer a couple of miles away who has chickens running around and there are some cows and everyone's outside and looks happy? What's wrong with buying my meat, eggs and milk from him? He loves his animals!

I give you Cheri Ezell-Vandersluis of Maple Farm Sanctuary:

So yes, you can raise them and have them graze in green fields of grass and brush them every day, but when you ultimately put them in someone's truck or on a livestock trailer, and they go to be slaughtered, I don't care if you say a prayer before they're slaughtered or if you simply send them into the slaughterhouse. Their throats are still slit. They feel pain. They gasp for air. I can't imagine what goes through their minds. If you look into their eyes you can see the fear, and the abandonment. You've loved this animal, and then you've sent them off to this horrible death. So I can't imagine "humane" and farming going together for raising any sentient being. The words just don't go together for me.

They don't go together for me, either.

Finally, as Patty Mark, founder of the Open Rescue Movement said:

It's not about how we 'care for' or treat the billions of animals we mass produce to keep in line, it's about erasing the line altogether.

Visit HumaneMyth.org, examine your own thinking, and help erase the line.

On Why Vegan Education Isn't Considered Direct Action

I had no idea that anyone thought vegan education was direct action until yesterday (thanks, Elaine!).

What is Direct Action?

Direct action is activity that fights for a cause dynamically and directly for immediate change. You can view direct action as a strong form of civil disobedience with a capacity for acting illegally. Activists employing direct action aim to create a situation whereby their opponents have to yield significant concessions to the activists' cause. Direct action campaigners often tend to disown the methods of the less dramatic and slower mainstream who advance social change through education and legislative procedures.

Last year's Animal Rights Conference had a session called: Paths to Animal Liberation (welfare vs. abolition, legislation & education vs. direct action). I wasn't there, but that doesn't matter. While many terms are indeed up for interpretation (nonviolence, anyone?), I didn't think that was the case with direct action.

I think pattrice jones' quote from "Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist Imperatives and the ALF" (in TOFF) is worth repeating:

"Direct action includes only activist tactics that, like boycotts and sabotage, are intended to have an immediate impact on a problem or its causes. In contrast, indirect action aims for future change through more circuitous routes, such as education, legislation, and symbolic demonstrations of opinion. . . . Ideally, direct action will illustrate or illuminate the problem at the same time as it interferes with its causes or effects. The very best direct action contributes to a long-term strategy for future change even as it offers tangible results in the here and now. . . . People who have integrated segregated lunch counters, put their bodies int he paths of troop transport trains, distributed illegal clean needles or birth control devices, boycotted chocolate or Coca-Cola, staged rent strikes, or built 'tent cities' for the homeless have all taken direct action against one or another form of oppression. Direct action for animals is similarly diverse" (137-8).

Last night I watched Morgan' Spurlock's 30 Days. George, a hunter from North Carolina, lives with Melissa Karpel's family (she works for PeTA), who are vegans, for 30 days. He participates in some demonstrations, rescues a calf, goes to a dairy farm, and works at a farmed animal sanctuary. As you might imagine, he is belligerent at first and has a difficult time, but with time he opens up and softens.

At the end, he says he's not going to stop hunting, but he also calls himself an animal rights activist. My poor husband thought I'd find this all very encouraging but I didn't. George is still going to hunt (we won't even get into how he's an animal rights activist, but I can tell you that it has to do with the mixed message that animal rights is about suffering).

My husband came down hard on me and said that though he doesn't agree with PeTA, how can you expect someone to spend 30 days learning about something so completely alien to him, and become a different person on the spot. After all, it took SEVERAL YEARS of me educating my husband for him to finally change his behavior. And he was much farther along than George!

"You have no idea what George is going to do when he gets back to Carolina," said my husband. "Maybe because of the interaction with the calf, he won't eat beef anymore. Maybe he won't be able to hunt, despite what he says. We don't know. But we do know that he's thinking differently than he did before, and if he has some support (and it appears that he doesn't), maybe he'll jump on the fast track. They planted the seed."

That's education--indirect action. It's not immediate.

On Clarity Regarding Nonviolent Direct Action

Well it looks like I've found my niche in the world of animal bloggers: annoying people by writing about things they don't want to think about.

Who knew that a piecemeal discussion of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? would cause so much ire? I feel the need to clarify a handful of issues that are sounding like they've gone through the telephone game I played as a child (where you tell a story to someone and they tell it to someone else, and four people later the story is very different from when it started).

• At no point have I advocated the use of violence against anyone. I don't even believe in the death penalty, as I think it's barbaric (and sends a ridiculously hypocritical message).
• There are groups working against animal exploitation that do NOT claim to be nonviolent. The ALF is not one of them. The ALF is a nonviolent group.
• My hope is that readers of Animal Person think about their own definition of nonviolence. Does it include property damage? Does it include sabotage? Does it include arson? And if it includes arson, what about the very real possibility that a sentient nonhuman or a human (like maybe a firefighter) is injured?
• The idea that if you really supported something you'd do it yourself doesn't make sense to me. I support lots of things I'm not going to do because I don't have the time, the skill or the inclination. I have supported candidates running for political office, which is something I have no interest in doing myself, but if someone represents my beliefs and is going to do a good job fighting the good fight, I'll give them money and maybe support them in other ways, as well. But I'm fairly certain there's no way I'm ever running for office.
• No one has ever said that nonviolent direct action is a substitute for vegan education. It's not one or the other. Vegan education is a given and the foundation, however many people feel it is not enough and they want to do more.
• No one has ever said that property damage is always necessary. Those who believe in nonviolent direct action see a range of tactics that put varying degrees or types of force on exploiters. They believe every situation is different and warrants its own strategic plan.
• If you think that property damage is unacceptable, as is breaking the law, what about open rescue? I have yet to hear from someone who disagrees with open rescue. What's going on there?
• Those against nonviolent direct action, such as breaking into a lab and rescuing some animals, often say that those animals are a drop in the bucket, and rescuing them doesn't help our cause. I understand that thinking. However, it's usually coming from people who are NOT utilitarians, and that seems like a very utilitarian notion to me. Aren't abolitionists doing what they do because of the utmost respect they have for individual sentient beings? Why is it that that respect doesn't come into play when breaking into a lab to rescue a couple of animals? Why is the individual suddenly not so important?

Finally, there's an awful lot of Truth being flung around. Just as an example (i.e., not to pick on anyone), the most recent comment, by Scott, includes:

Alex,

The only thing that will bring us closer to abolition is education. . . . Every incident of property damage and sabotage takes us further from the goal of abolition.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing because I don't know that's true. How does anyone know that's true? (And by the way, Scott does include language such as "I believe" and "I think" in his comment.)

I'm not the go-to-theorist person. I'm not the bearer of The Truth. I don't claim to have all the answers. It's more like have all the questions. As I've written before, I don't want to tell anyone what to think. I just want them to think.
 

On Speciesm, the ALF and the Media

I approached the essays in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? with an open mind and discovered that I couldn't disagree with the notion that being against nonviolent direct action (that includes property damage and sabotage) is speciesist. As Kevin Jonas writes in "Bricks and Bullhorns":

"Activists debate the 'appropriateness' of certain tactics, and many fear losing the moral high ground in seeking to intimidate the opposition.

Such criticism of direct action and controversial ventures like SHAC is a speciesist insult to those animals who depend on humans to advocate on their behalf. If those opposed to direct action are really honest with themselves, they will have to admit that they do not believe the goal of animal liberation justifies the tactics they claim to oppose but would support  in other contexts. Most people do support property destruction, violence, and murder for certain causes. If people in Liberia were being rendered for food, it would be a safe bet that most would support a war to end such an atrocity. If critics of the ALF and SHAC honestly faced the internalized prejudices that they harbor, and imagined that it was white, middle-class kindergartners from Kansas being pumped full of bleach or anally electrocuted, most would be ready to take up arms themselves. . . .

Those who may ethically support the ALF and the use of controversial means, but see it as a strategic mistake because of the negative impact on public opinion, have only themselves to blame. It is the failure of movement organizations and speakers to reframe the debate away from the tactic to the more substantive issues of animal exploitation. It is a tragic mistake and a setback for the animal rights movement to let the media determine our tactical agenda because of a fear of negative coverage" (270).

When one claims to be against speciesism, but would use certain tactics in the service of humans but not nonhumans, I have no choice but to say that's a profound contradiction (a.k.a., hypocrisy). I would, however welcome any explanation that says otherwise.

As for allowing a fear of negative coverage to determine tactical agenda, I see both sides of that, and agree with Karen Dawn (and I don't agree with her a lot of the time) in "From the Front Line to the Front Page"  (also in TOFF) that if the ALF had "a real battle plan" (228) with regard to the media, the messages that reach the public might be of a different, sympathetic sort. I think if you're going to do something that could very well come off looking negative, part of your plan (by necessity) should be components that address that. I think the negative coverage aspect can be neutralized and transformed. I also think the coverage could be framed as pro-animal and pro-justice rather than anti-human. Now, if you don't agree with anything the ALF does it doesn't matter, but to make your decision based on coverage that can be changed, that's a different story.

Then again, those involved with the ALF would have to do all the work. If we don't know what they're doing or when, our hands are tied. And if they don't communicate that their attitude toward the media has changed and that there will be a quasi public relations component built into their activities, those who don't support them because of negative coverage will continue to not support them.

On the Horse Slaughter Predicament

I had a tough time with the horse slaughter ban, as it's not as if it's going to stop anyone from using horses, and it could make their plight even worse because they would simply be transported to Canada and Mexico and killed there. In fact, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, horse slaughter businesses in Canada have grown by 75% since laws were passed in 2006 making it illegal to kill horses for food.

A central point in this particular discussion is regarding the difficulty of "humanely slaughtering" horses. I've seen some of the footage from plants in Canada, and it's horrifying. Of course, Temple Grandin is on the scene with recommendations.

This issue is a popular one down here in polo country, and "horse people" are emotional about it and all of the ones I know are vehemently anti-slaughter. They don't want them transported anywhere to be killed. However, they transport them all the time (in a much, much better fashion), and buy and sell them all the time as their needs and wants dictate, and it all seems a bit hypocritical to me. They don't want them killed: fine. But they also don't want to care for them for the rest of their lives. So what exactly do they want to happen to them?

Last week, a horse rescue group down here bought horses who were going to slaughter and brought them to a huge, gorgeous farm. This particular group is, from what I know, well-funded and able to care for the horses if they cannot adopt them all out (although there were well-over 100 of them, so I'm a bit skeptical). And the week prior, 160 horses were rescued from a sanctuary, whose owner abandoned them because she could no longer afford to care for them. They had to be rescued from their rescuer!

So what's the answer to the horse situation? I suppose:

• More sanctuaries.
• Educating people who use horses about the bigger picture, as in, you are taking responsibility for this life--are you in a position to do that?
• Campaign to ban the various uses of horses.
• Educate the public, who sporadically use horses for entertainment or sport, that they are complicit. If they don't like what ultimately happens to horses, they shouldn't participate in horse-using industries. It sounds obvious to you, but humans have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize.

Speciesism is a significant part of the horse issue, as few people are campaigning for an end to the slaughter of cows and chickens. Being against horse slaughter is akin to being against the use of primates in labs. We should help people understand that the difference between horses and cows is in our minds. We have decided that one is more worthy of respect or life than the other.

This is not to say I'm for horse slaughter, as I'm not for the slaughter of anyone. The one thing we can do to help horses is the one thing we can do to help all animals. Convince people not to use them, so fewer and fewer of them are bred and fewer and fewer of them are killed or abandoned or forced to live their lives in the service of humans.

On Eating Less Meat vs. Eating Fewer Animals

I've got myself a Gray Matter in Mark Bittman's "Putting Meat Back in its Place." Similar to "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler" from January, his modus operandi is: there are many reasons to decrease your consumption of animal products (actually, he says "eat less meat"), and though he mentions that some might abstain for ethical reasons ("or even irrational" ones, and I have no idea what that means), he doesn't ever take a stand.

I think everyone should eat fewer animals. Preferably none. Being the linguist that I am, however, I don't interpret "eating fewer animals" the same way I interpret "eat less meat."

Let's deconstruct:

Meat, though it might produce a visual, won't produce the same visual as animal, as animal is the whole sentient human, face and all, and meat does not ordinarily have whole or face as features, which makes it easier to deny from whence it came. Practically speaking, however, when you eat less meat, fewer pounds of animals must be involved (in total), right?

Bittman does provide some useful tips in his list of ways to "ease your path to eating less meat."

• The first tip is "Forget the protein thing," wherein he provides helpful information about grams of protein per calorie (with non-animal sources coming out on top). But his advice is to be omnivorous despite the fact that he just said that "per calorie, many plants have more protein than meat." My initial response was: If protein, the much-touted reason to eat animals, isn't even a valid reason, why eat them at all?
• "Buy less meat" is sort of a weirdly-obvious tip, but I'd like to see it as "Buy fewer foods made from animals," as it reminds you of what you're doing.
• I find it strange that he insists, "We're not discussing vegetarianism, remember?" and if you click on the link provided you end up at the "Health Guide," which tells you that protein may be lacking in a vegetarian's diet, and mentions the 1980s belief that food combining is necessary to get complete proteins. Great--advice that's both dated and inaccurate, and makes it look difficult to be healthy and not eat animals. Not to mention the fact that vegetarianism includes eggs and products made from milk, and I don't see how vegetarians could ever lack protein.
• There's some cooking advice for beans and grains that's fine, though Earth Balance can easily replace butter. Then again, Bittman doesn't address eggs or products made from cow's milk at all; he focuses on flesh.
• Above all, Bittman, like Pollan, doesn't want anyone to feel like they're missing anything. And I suppose that's why he never takes a moral stand. To have a personal ethic and to live by it usually involves a change in one's lifestyle more substantial than moving the animal flesh from the center of the plate (his tip #3).
• Probably the most revealing of Bittman's beliefs is: "Once in a while, forget the rules and pledges, and eat like a real American; obviously you can’t do this every time, but it’s an option." (This is, I suppose, akin to Singer and Mason's Paris Exemption.) This tells me that if you don't have an ethic that underlies your behavior, you have no reason to stick with the behavior. You can "eat like a real American," which I interpret as an insult as it means you'll probably be gorging on food that isn't good for you or the planet, and obviously makes no attempt to respect sentient nonhumans.

My biggest problem with Bittman and Pollan is their unwillingness to take a stand for animals. Of course, that would take them out of the mainstream, and their audience would decrease accordingly because the fact is, as we've all been saying for quite some time: Americans simply want to eat animals, and will concoct all manner of excuses and tips and paths that make sure they can continue to do so. And they're not about to allow a little discussion about ethics to get in their way.

It's our job to call things or processes or animals what they are, and to persuade people to at least entertain the question of whether it's morally justifiable to kill someone when you don't need to. It's a culture shift, it's a language shift, it's a dietary shift, it's a consumer shift, it's the shift of several interconnected paradigms. And it won't happen unless we are committed to making it happen.

On Greyhound Extinction and Rodeos

The pro-Greyhound racing people are very much like pro-mushers, with their "they love to run" mantra. A mean-spirited, semi-rational person ranting about Porphyry's comment about breeding being the problem, asked me how I would feel when there were no more of my beloved Greyhounds.

For the record, I am neutral about the existence of Greyhounds, cows, fish and all other sentient nonhumans. I don't think of them as existing for me in any way. They exist for themselves. And if they don't, I don't consider myself as worse off in any way because they're not here for me.

Would I be sad if they didn't exist? Well, considering Greyhounds exist because we create them so we can use them, either for show or for sport, if we stopped breeding them I wouldn't have to spend the time, energy and money I do rescuing them and fighting for them. I don't think of adopting retired racers as gaining pets. I think of adopting them as a community service, as saving lives, and as a way to mitigate some of the enormous damage the industry has caused. I'd love to be able to say I don't feel like I have to do something to decrease some of the horror of this hideous industry that's in my backyard. Financially speaking, no more Greyhounds would spell much more money for me, as for instance Violet's expenses in the first year I had her were $15,000 because of what her owner and trainers did to her. Because she was created to make them money.

That doesn't mean Greyhounds aren't magnificent, regal creatures. It simply means they don't care how magnificent or regal they are; they just want to live in peace. I would question my commenter if he would be so disturbed by the extinction of Greyhounds if they were slow and unattractive.

Enough said about that.

As for rodeos, the charreada is to rodeos what the ALF is to animal rights. In "Rough Events at Mexican Rodeos in U.S. Criticized," by Patricia Leigh Brown in today's New York Times, the author describes the events at the charreada, which is a Mexican tradition (tradition: an excuse to get away with whatever we want by attaching it to our culture and thereby making it off limits or impervious to criticism). There's horse tripping, which self-explanatory, steer tailing, "in which a charro grabs a steer’s tail, wraps it beneath his stirrup and flips the animal to the ground," and old standbys like bronc riding, bull riding and team roping.

(When you watch the audio slideshow, you'll hear about the importance of roping the wild mare by both front legs, because you don't want to hurt the mare when you slam "the animal" to the ground. "It's an art, it's an art," says Marcos Franco.)

What I don't understand is why the charreada is any worse than the rodeos we're accustomed to. They share a premise: use and abuse animals for fun. They share what occurs: animals are tortured and people cheer. They share an illegitimate excuse for their continuation: tradition. What's the difference?

What's worse is that by painting the charreada as so cruel, it makes the American rodeo look moderate. The ALF makes PeTA look moderate (to most people), and the charreada makes our particular brand of bull, calf and bronc cruelty look less cruel by comparison, hence more palatable.

We have a lot of work to do. Somehow, we've got to break through the insanity of clinging to using sentient beings for fun. We've got to break through the mentality that says it's okay to do whatever we want to whomever we want, as long as our victim is not human. That's not a tradition worth continuing, and it's certainly not a tradition to be proud of.

Stay tuned for a deconstruction of Mark Bittman's latest plea to not stop eating animals, but eat fewer of them (actually, he says "eat less meat" not "eat fewer animals).

Let's Give Mitchell Some Answers

I'd like to draw from yesterday's comments for today, as I know not everyone finds comments enthralling, particularly if they're not personally involved.

On "On the Two Prongs of Welfare Reform Consideration" (refresher: 1-is it really a reform; and 2-is it an incremental step toward not using animals at all), Mitchell writes:

Thanks for posting this, it helps me begin to understand where the abolitionists are coming from.

My thoughts on your two criteria. First, is it really a reform? That I can certainly agree with. The reform has to make things better for animals or why should we expend effort backing it? But I think we are a little further apart on what make a reform a reform. I agree that the fate of male chicks is a travesty and needs to stop. But I am having trouble seeing why that means we can't make things better for the laying hens right now.

The point about banning 'downer' cattle from the food supply, you're absolutely right. That's not any sort of reform.

Your second point, does this move us toward eliminating animal use? Again, I certainly agree with the broad sentiment but we appear to differ on some of the details. Part of what getting rules and laws passed involves is education. If we can show people just what is being done to the animal that is the piece of veal on their plate, we can encourage to stop eating it. If we can force the veal producers to come forward and admit what goes on, we're a step closer to getting it stopped.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear your thoughts and those of your commenters. It may well be that I need to expand my thinking some more.

And I would definitely like to hear of some good charities.

First, I'd say that the reason I pointed to the Peaceful Prairie campaign is that it demonstrates that hens kept in cage-free facilities are often not substantially better off than battery hens (hence, "Can you tell the difference?). So the much-touted reform of changing the way they are kept doesn't appear to help them, and let's not forget that people are paying a premium for this different type of captivity and abuse, and they're feeling mighty good about themselves. Now, most people probably have no idea that "humane" labels and cage-free operations aren't what they think they are (it's called marketing), and unless we educate them they never will know, as everything they are told--and are quick to believe--says otherwise.

Outside of actual reforms there are of course small farms where chickens and cows and pigs run around. They're not free, as they cannot leave, and the female mammals will be artificially inseminated, and every animal will probably be slaughtered, but I'd say it is true that they have better lives than animals on large farms. However, I don't believe in keeping animals for your own gain and I don't believe there is such a thing as humane slaughter, and I don't believe that there is a way to "produce" animal products that doesn't involve infringement on their rights to their own bodies and their own natural lives. Furthermore, I know we don't need to eat animal flesh or menstrual excretions or mammary secretions in order to survive. Given all that, the fact that there's a farm a couple of miles away where animals run around prior to slaughter doesn't really thrill me. If you must know, it gives me creepy chills.

But that's me.

As far as education goes, I believe that nearly all Animal Person readers will agree that vegan education is a priority. How it's done has less agreement and there's nothing wrong with that. My doctorate was essentially a study of learning how to learn and teaching how to teach, using our learning of language as a model. What all good educators know is that we all have multiple intelligences and varying learning styles. Not everyone immediately integrates the information you present verbally. Some people respond faster and better to pictures. Some are more auditory.

The debate around vegan education usually centers on images. There was a time when I was anti-image, as I wanted everyone to be able to grasp the concept of rights--the concept that we have no right to use animals for our own purposes. But that's an intellectual argument that many people simply don't respond to. If, however, you show them images of the animals they use in their daily lives, they will respond emotionally, and that opening of their heart may lead to an opening of their mind regarding their complicity in the brutal massacre of billions of sentient nonhumans each year.

And speaking of brutal, there's also a debate about the level of gore that is desirable when showing someone what they're responsible for when they eat or buy shoes or cosmetics. I prefer not to bombard someone with grisly images, mostly because I have the ability to turn off and not allow images to affect me. And if I have that ability (that I've developed for the purposes of mental and emotional survival), I assume others have it, as well. For me, less is more. In addition, focusing on gruesome images keeps the conversation about welfare and might--might--make it difficult to transition to the notion that there's no such thing as humane farming. I think gory images do have a place, and we should be careful when using them and they should be a part of a presentation of the idea that we shouldn't be using animals, not that we should be regulating how we use them.

Finally, with regard to veal, "what goes on" is horrible, yes, but for me it's not that different from the "production" of any other animal product in that the requirements are: disrespect, captivity, various levels of physical discomfort and deprivation, mental anguish and of course, slaughter. I find it impossible to concoct a way from cow to veal without myriad forms of cruelty (as use is cruel). However, marketers of animal flesh will always find a way to repackage what they do in order to grab market share they've lost due to bad press for whatever reason. And people who turn calves into veal have done exactly that, and veal is no longer taboo. That's my evidence that welfare reforms don't lead to abolition.

Enough from me.

Anyone else want to respond to Mitchell with their thoughts?

On the Two Prongs of Welfare Reform Consideration

First, I am disconcerted to report that my Barnes & Noble sold out of The Compassionate Carnivore in 24 hours.

No, thanks, you don't need to special order one for me.
Oh, they'll be more in next week? I'll come back then.

Borders is on my way to a meeting today so I'll check there. I won't have time to read all of it and I just might have to purchase it if it's compelling and contains sentiments, research or quotes I can't resist sharing.

I realize I may not have been as clear as I'd like regarding my thought process around the question of whether welfare reforms lead to abolition. The two prongs I look at are:

1.    Is the reform really a reform? Are the sentient nonhumans being used for food, clothing or research in fact significantly better off than pre-reform? This is where the Peaceful Prairie campaign comes in. We were led to believe that the notion of cage free necessarily meant a significant improvement in the well being of the hens. And in some cases, while the hens are alive (as humane slaughter is an oxymoron), they do indeed have lives that are substantially better than battery hens. However, you must consider the boys who are "disposed of" or "discarded" by way of maceration or gassing. You can't not consider that. And the same is true for milk. How can you not consider the calves who are taken from their mothers, and who will shortly be served as veal? I don't care how much grass the cow is permitted to eat under the California sun. If she is artificially inseminated and her babies are taken from her, I have a very, very difficult time being satisfied with the grazing-in-the-grass-under-the-sun part.

Then there are welfare reforms that I'm not sure why are called welfare reforms. Exhibit A: "The Agriculture Department on Tuesday proposed banning from the food supply all cows that are too sick or injured to walk, a long-sought victory for advocates of animal welfare."

I'm not sure why that's a welfare reform. Ceasing the endless cycle of forceful insemination followed by pregnancy after pregnancy, only to have your babies removed from you and slaughtered, and the physical toll all of that abuse involves, is what makes a downer cow. Eliminate all that (including the calf removal part), and perhaps there is indeed an improvement in welfare. But removing them from the food supply (and killing them anyway)? That sounds more like human welfare reform, as it's a food supply issue. How does that make a difference to the cows? Why should I put my time and money behind that campaign?

2.   How is the welfare reform an incremental step toward not using animals at all? I've read debates about the banning of the steel jaw leghold trap and whether it is/would be a demonstration of incremental abolition. I don't think it is. Banning fur is a step toward abolition as it ends the use of the animal. Banning the trap is like moving to controlled-atmosphere killing in my mind. Do you agree? I'd also say the same thing about the banning of veal crates. Tell me there's no more legal veal, and that "humanely-raised veal" isn't now the third most popular item at Wolfgang Puck's Spago, and perhaps I'd be inclined to believe that the absence of crates leads to not using the animal.

Because I'm always interested in financially (and otherwise) supporting organizations that campaign for initiatives that I believe in, I welcome any suggestions about campaigns or groups that I might be missing (and yes, I know all about Sea Shepherd and I'd like to hear your thoughts about them).

Finally, I like the idea of the Boston Vegan Association and perhaps that's the way we all need to go: veganizing our cities and towns and educating our communities. Perhaps if we had a coordinated, nationwide effort to veganize our own backyards, other benefits would result, such as vegans running for office, more vegan businesses, more options in restaurants, and changes in local policies that would actually end the use of animals (can you say Greyhound racing?).

Or not.

What do you think?

On Nonviolence, Terrorists and Will Potter

If you haven't seen Will Potter's talk at the University of Washington Law School, it's a must see if only for one passage at the end:

Regardless of how you feel about these tactics--I think there's a time and a place to debate if property destruction is violence, or if nonviolent civil disobedience is appropriate anymore, or if arson gives the movement a bad name. All of these debates should be happening, and they've been happening, I know, for a very long time. But I want to argue that at this point a lot of it is completely irrelevant because the government is not making these distinctions between: Well here are the extremists, and here are the reasonable animal rights activists. . . .

It's all part of the same pile to them, and they're infiltrating all of it, they're throwing their resources into all of it, they're making no delineations whatsoever because it's all part of the same ideology. And just like the Red Scare, it's not the individual people that are a threat, it's the ideology that's seen as a threat. So if we fall into this trap of naming names and pledging oaths to certain tactics, if you stand up and shout from the rooftops, We're nonviolent and we condemn all these people and we condemn anyone that does anything different than what we're doing, it just fuels, and paves the road to go down the same path that happened in the 40s and 50s and many other times in US history.

I by no means think anyone should stop thinking critically about nonviolence (and how they define it) and whether or not it has been, will be or can be successful when it comes to the liberation of sentient nonhumans. (And I will continue drawing from Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? this week.) However, I know that many people are fearful of admitting their support of tactics such as property damage. But when the government doesn't make a distinction between your peaceful vegan life that includes boycotting and signing petitions, and that of an activist who breaks into a fur farm to liberate animals or one who participates in a home demonstration at the residence of a CEO of a research lab, spending time and energy condemning those who use different tactics might not matter in the end if we're all targets simply because we don't want to kill anyone unless we have to, and we don't want to use the lives, talents, secretions or body parts of others for our own gain.

PS: Today will not be as free as I had originally planned, so The Delusional Carnivore will have to wait until tomorrow. I know, I know, you're gravely disappointed. As am I.