Downloadable abolitionist pamphlet to promote veganism and animal rights

Looking for an abolitionist pamphlet to use for promoting veganism? Feel free to download our tri-fold pamphlet and have copies made for distribution. (Be sure that the correct double sided printing option is used so that the tri-fold works properly.) This pamphlet is bilingual, english on one side and french on the other. An english/spanish version will be coming soon!

Click here to download the pamphlet.

animalemancipation - Upload a doc

Read this doc on Scribd: animalemancipation

Being used like an animal. Being a cow, pig, sheep or chicken often means living a terrifying and torturous life in a factory farm until you’re killed or left to die when you are no longer profitable. Being a mouse, a rabbit, or a guinea pig frequently means being the subject of painful medical experiments. Elephants, tigers, lions, apes, and other animals great and small live miserable lives in unnatural conditions in zoos and circuses. The result is that billions of animals live lives of totally unjustifiable exploitation. There is no need to eat or wear animals, to run pointless experiments on them or to use them for other purposes. Taste, convenience and tradition do not make animal use “necessary”. animals by reassuring people that using animals is fine -- so long as it’s done “humanely”. And typically, the only reforms passed are those that are, in the end, profitable to the companies, helping them to make animal exploitation even more efficient. The idea that reform could lead somehow to an elimination of exploitation or will somehow liberate animals is simply not reasonable. What is necessary is a direct and abolitionist approach. Changing minds and changing the law. The best way to address the problem is head-on and honestly, by calling for abolition: an end to all animal use, period, and by ending our own personal animal use as much as currently possible. What does that mean for animals? It means an end to painful medical experimentation, to the prolonged suffering of life on a factory farm, to the terror of death in a slaughterhouse. Does that mean we’ll have to give sheep the right to vote? Of course not! It only means that they will have the right not to be used by human beings. The underlying problem isn’t treatment standards — it’s the belief that animals are ours to use. The root cause of animal exploitation is that, under the law, animals are property rather than persons like you or me. That not only allows but encourages humans to treat animals pretty much however they want. There are only light penalties for violating the restrictions that do exist for harming certain animals (eg, laws against cruelty towards companion animals). As long as non-human animals are considered property, companies will be free to breed and use them for the purposes they find profitable. Companies’ legal rights to use the methods that get the most profits out of their animal property will always take precedence over the interests the animals have in avoiding pain and in continuing to exist. Change starts with you, today. Change is about taking personal action -- not about making a donation. The best way to help animals is to take their rights seriously, which means opposing their use by human beings. This means going vegan -- eliminate your use of any products that contain animal ingredients or are tested on animals, as well as any use of animals for entertainment or other purposes. Animal welfare groups are not committed to ending animal exploitation. Animal welfare groups have been very ineffective in improving the lives of animals. Traditional animal welfare groups believe that animals should be property, but that we should treat them “more humanely”. Newer welfare groups may use the words “animal rights” but they also claim that “more humane” animal exploitation is fine, or that actions which encourage the use of animals will somehow lead to an end to the use of animals. For example, rather than champion the interests of animals exclusively, many animal welfare groups give awards to animal exploiters and encourage people to buy “more humane” products from these companies. This only makes animal exploitation more profitable, which certainly does nothing to help animals. Go vegan! Lives depend on it! It’s much easier than you might think. Alternatives to animal products are widely available. Grocery stores carry non-dairy milks, fresh fruits and vegetables, and other dietary alternatives, and your taste buds will quickly adapt to your new way of eating. Clothing and shoe stores carry a wide range of products that use no wool, no silk and no leather, and there are many other vegan-friendly businesses on the Internet. It’s never been easier to be vegan, and you cannot do anything more meaningful for animals than become vegan and work to convince others that non-human animals have a right not to be used by humans. Go vegan and visit www.animalemancipation.com for more information, resources, and support. She’s not a milk machine. She’s someone’s mother, someone’s daughter, but they keep her in a tiny stall and they use her as a piece of property. They’ll take away all of her children. At 6, they’ll kill her even though she’d naturally live to be 20. She needs your help. Kinder, gentler exploitation is not the answer. Words like “humane” and “free range” are misleading as they are even applied to crowded, unhealthy conditions that are not significantly different from factory farming conditions. All animals used for human ends are still controlled in every aspect of their lives, are still sent to the slaughterhouse or otherwise have their lives cut short once they are no longer profitable, none of which can be called “humane” without rendering that word meaningless. More important, “kinder, gentler” exploitation will never help animals in any serious way -- if anything, it only encourages more animal use. Reforming the system will not end the system. Reform will never eliminate the system of animal slavery itself because that’s not the goal of “reforming” a system. Reforms, even when successful, do nothing meaningful to address the root cause of animal suffering; in fact, reform campaigns harm Être utilisé comme un animal. Être une vache, un cochon, un mouton, ou une poule implique souvent une vie terrifiante et de torture dans un élevage intensif jusqu’à ce qu’on soit tué ou abandonné à la mort quand on n’est plus profitable. Être une souris, un lapin, ou un cochon d’Inde signifie souvent être le sujet d’une expérience médicale douloureuse. Éléphants, tigres, lions, grands singes, et divers autres animaux sont soumis aux conditions artificielles d’un zoo ou d’un cirque. Par conséquent des milliards d’animaux endurent une vie de misère, d’exploitation, et de souffrances. Il n’est pas nécessaire de manger ou de porter des animaux, de mener des expériences inutiles sur eux, ou de les utiliser pour d’autres raisons. Goût, complaisance et tradition ne rendent pas « nécessaire » l’utilisation des animaux. réforme nuisent aux animaux parce qu’elles réaffirment aux gens que le fait d’utiliser les animaux est acceptable – pourvu qu’ils soient traités de manière « humaine ». De plus, les seules réformes typiquement adoptées sont celles qui sont, en fin de compte, financièrement avantageuses pour les compagnies qui profitent des animaux, et ainsi qui les aident à exploiter de manière plus efficace. L’idée que les réformes pourraient mener un jour à l’élimination de l’exploitation animale ou pourraient libérer des animaux n’est simplement pas réaliste. Ce qui est nécessaire est une approche directe et abolitionniste. Transformer les esprits et transformer la loi. La meilleure façon d’affronter le problème est de manière directe et honnête, en réclamant l’abolition : la fin de toute exploitation animale, tout court, et en éliminant chacun notre usage personnel des animaux autant qu’il est possible de le faire actuellement. Qu’est-ce que cela veut dire pour les animaux? Cela signifie la fin des expériences médicales douloureuses, la fin de la souffrance prolongée de la vie sur une ferme industrielle, la fin de l’horreur intense de la mort dans un abattoir. Cela veut dire que les animaux seraient capables de gérer leur vie eux-mêmes, sans domination et exploitation par les humains. Est-ce que cela veut dire que nous devrions donner le droit de vote aux moutons? Bien sûr que non! Cela veut dire tout simplement que les animaux auront le droit de ne pas être exploités par les humains. Les normes de traitement ne sont pas le problème – L’exploitation des animaux l’est. La source fondamentale de la souffrance et de l’exploitation des animaux découle du fait que les animaux ont le statut légal de propriétés, plutôt que de personnes tout comme nous. Cela autorise et encourage les humains à traiter les animaux de n’importe quelle façon. Violer les restrictions qui existent (p.e. lois contre la cruauté envers les animaux de compagnie) n’entraîne que de légères pénalités. Tant que les animaux sont des propriétés, les compagnies sont libres de les élever et de les utiliser à n’importe quelle fin qui leur soit profitable. Le droit légal des compagnies d’utiliser les méthodes qui leur génèrent le maximum de profits aura toujours préséance sur les intérêts des animaux à éviter la souffrance et à continuer à exister. La transformation commence chez vous, aujourd’hui. C’est l’action personnelle qui alimente le changement, pas le fait de faire un don. La meilleure façon d’aider les animaux est de prendre au sérieux leurs droits, ce qui entraîne s’opposer à l’usage des animaux par les humains. Cela veut dire devenir vegan - éliminer son utilisation de produits qui contiennent des ingrédients animaux ou qui sont testé sur les animaux, ainsi que tout autre usage des animaux pour le divertissement ou autres fins. Les groupes réformistes pour le bien-être animal ne sont pas engagés à l’abolition de l’exploitation animale. Les groupes pour le bien-être animal ont eu très peu de succès à améliorer la vie des animaux. Les groupes réformistes traditionnels croient que les animaux devraient demeurer des propriétés, mais que nous devons les traiter « mieux ». Les nouveaux groupes réformistes utilisent parfois l’expression « droits des animaux » mais disent aussi que l’exploitation « plus humaine » est acceptable, ou que leurs actions activistes qui encouragent l’utilisation d’animaux pourraient un jour mener à l’abolition de l’exploitation animale. Par exemple, au lieu de défendre les intérêts des animaux exclusivement, les groupes de bien-être animal décernent souvent des prix aux exploiteurs et encouragent les gens à acheter des produits « plus humains » de ces compagnies. Cela sert uniquement à rendre l’exploitation animale plus profitable, ce qui n’aide certainement pas les animaux. Devenez vegan(e)! Des vies en dépendent! C’est plus facile que vous ne le pensez. Des alternatives aux produits d’origine animale sont largement disponibles. Les épiceries vendent divers breuvages non-laitiers, des fruits et légumes frais, et autres alternatives alimentaires. Des magasins de souliers et de vêtements vendent une gamme de produits sans laine, sans soie et sans cuir, et il existe beaucoup d’autres commerçants vegans sur Internet. Il n’a jamais été aussi facile d’être vegan, et vous ne pouvez rien faire de plus important pour les animaux que de devenir vegan(e) et de travailler à convaincre d’autres gens que les animaux non-humains ont le droit de ne pas être exploités par les humains. Elle n’est pas une machine à lait. Elle est mère, fille, individu, mais elle est confinée dans un petit enclos et elle est utilisée comme une propriété. Tous ses enfants lui seront enlevés. À l’âge de 6 ans, elle sera mise à mort alors que la durée normale de sa vie aurait pu être d’une vingtaine d’années. Elle a besoin de votre aide. L’exploitation plus douce et modérée n’est pas la solution. Les termes comme « plus humain » ou « en liberté » sont trompeurs puisqu’ils se voient mêmes appliqués à des conditions malsaines et surpeuplées qui n’offrent pas de différences significatives par rapport aux conditions de l’élevage intensif. Tous les animaux exploités pour les désirs humains sont quand même contrôlés dans tous les aspects de leur vie, sont quand même envoyés à l’abattoir ou se font tuer autrement lorsqu’ils ne sont plus profitable, et rien de tout cela ne peut être considéré « humain ». Pire encore, l’exploitation plus « douce » et « modérée » n’aidera jamais véritablement les animaux – cela a plutôt tendance à encourager davantage leur exploitation. Devenez vegan(e) et visitez www.emancipationanimale.com pour plus d’information, des ressources, et du soutien. Réformer le système ne mettra jamais fin au système. Il est impossible d’utiliser des réformes afin d’éliminer éventuellement le système d’esclavage animal, puisque modifier un système n’a jamais comme but de rejeter complètement le système et ses principes de base. Les réformes, même les campagnes réussies, n’adressent pas du tout la source fondamentale de la souffrance animale; en fait, les campagnes de

Vegan Q&A column

I contribute a "Veg Q&A" column to the local Capital Veg News newsletter. Sometimes the questions have to do with animal rights, so I thought I would reproduce a few of those here. Here is the first one.

Q: I think that animals should have rights, but I feel that going vegan is too extreme. Can’t I show my support for animal rights by eating vegetarian food most of the time and only eating free-range, organic animal products when I do eat them?

A: Because eating animal products is so common and accepted in society, there is a misconception that while veganism may be a political statement, meat- and dairy-eating is politically neutral. This is not true -- the action of eating meat, dairy, or other animal products implies that you accept the idea that it is okay for us to use animals, including to kill them unnecessarily (as it is certainly not necessary for human health to eat animal products, and “free-range” animals, even those who are exploited for their milk or eggs, have their lives cut short just like those raised in factory farms).

Support for “free-range” animal agriculture and the idea of “better” or “more humane” conditions for the animals does not have anything to do with animal rights, but rather animal welfare. These two positions are fundamentally incompatible: one says that it is okay to use animals as long as certain standards are followed with respect to their welfare before they are killed, while the other position says that animals should have the right to live out their lives on their own terms. This starts with the right not to be considered someone’s property, for while animals are property, people can do whatever they like with them including killing them for personal or economic use. The property owner's right to make the most of his or her property will always take legal precedence over the interests that the animal property has in not being harmed. An animal rights position says that no matter how well the animal is treated, it is still wrong to use his or her body as a production machine (such as in the case of dairy, eggs or honey) or as a commodity itself (such as in the case of meat, leather, etc). These are rights violations (and they inevitably lead to suffering).

Therefore, when we talk about “animal rights”, we need to be aware that the many forms of institutionalized animal exploitation in our society, including the use of animals for food, clothing, medical testing, entertainment, and other purposes, violate the most basic right that animals would need to be accorded by humans, the right not to be considered property. If you are serious about wanting animals to have rights, the first thing to do is to stop participating in violating their rights, in order to live in a manner consistent with your ethics. This does mean going vegan as the minimal baseline.

Veganism may seem overwhelming at first, but remember that nearly all vegans were once in your position, and succeeded in making the transition. You can do it as well. Your taste buds do adapt, and most vegans find that they end up discovering so many new foods and recipes that they are eating a greater variety of delicious food than they ever did before. Social situations become easier as you become more comfortable with polite but firm ways of expressing your commitment to avoiding animal products. Be sure to also seek out support so that you don’t feel alone in your beliefs and lifestyle - for starters, take advantage of NCVA activities, or look for like-minded friends online. There are plenty of great resources out there. You will no doubt end up finding veganism very enjoyable and fulfilling, knowing that you're living in a manner that is consistent with your belief that non-human animals should have rights too!

Petition for PeTA: if you are serious about animal rights, please sign!

Roger Yates has started a petition asking PeTA to change their misrepresentation of Peter Singer's utilitarian-theoretical book Animal Liberation as a book about animal rights theory. This deliberate misrepresentation and co-optation of the term "animal rights" serves the new-welfarist group well, as they continue to promote themselves as an animal rights organization when they are not. Their furthering of the misunderstanding of the general public as to what "animal rights" is and is not is a serious issue to those who are genuinely concerned about animal rights. As Roger explains in his blog entry describing the rationale for the petition, "Why would I bother petitioning PeTA in a world in which about 17,000 nonhumans are slaughtered every second for their flesh? I bother because social movement claims-making is important. I bother because clarity in social movement claims-making is important too."

Please visit Roger's petition and add your support by signing it!

Vegan food is awesome

Unfortunately, since there are relatively few vegans, other people seem to have this impression that it's really difficult to be vegan, that it must take a lot of willpower and that you have to be willing to deprive yourself of "good food". Part of the reason for this impression is no doubt because we often see our non-vegan family and friends in situations where we have no control over the food being served, and so all too often end up with a plate of iceberg lettuce and mushy tomatoes or something similarly unappetizing- and unsatisfying-looking in front of us. But those of us who are vegan know that these impressions really couldn't be further from the truth - vegan food is not only good for non-human animals and for our health, but is amazingly delicious. Not to mention the fact that you can re-create a vegan version of just about any dish you liked as a non-vegan - it may not taste exactly the same, this is true, but your taste buds change when you haven't eaten animal products for a while, so that a good "substitute" recipe is just as satisfying as the original. Actually, more so, knowing that no one was harmed to make it. Opposing the property status of animals simply by eating really freaking delicious food; what could be better??

In that vein, I thought I would share a few photos of meals that I've made recently.
This is a vegan version of one of my favourite staple meals from before I was vegan - french toast grilled cheese sandwiches with maple syrup (*someone* that I live with seems to think that this is disgusting, but I'm sure other french-canadians will understand the maple syrup thing!) The french toast is based on Isa Moskowitz's recipe in Vegan with a Vengeance (the best vegan french toast recipe out there; it has a chickpea flour base). The cheese is also homemade, based on the block uncheese recipes in The Ultimate Uncheese Cookbook.
Red lentil dal (red lentils, onions, cumin, fennel, mustard seeds, turmeric, chili flakes, garlic, sea salt, cilantro), and greens (spinach, collards, onions, cumin, coriander, dry mustard, ginger, cayenne, garlic, sea salt, lemon juice, coconut) over brown rice. The samosas were store bought.
Vegan tourtière, based on a recipe that was given to me a couple of years ago by Gaia of Live it Up Vegan!, with roasted, curried brussels sprouts and mashed acorn squash.

Spelt crust pizza with a nutritional yeast /chickpea flour cheese sauce (also based on what I remember from a recipe in The Ultimate Uncheese Cookbook), asparagus, mushrooms, onions, artichokes, and sundried tomatoes.
Sweet potato, white potato, collard greens, and chickpea curry, garnished with cilantro and served over mahogany rice. Very very loosely based on Dino's dry-cooked garbanzo recipe from Alternative Vegan.
And now for dessert - I've been on a pie-making kick lately. Here is a vegan banana cream pie. The baseline recipe I created for all my cream pies was inspired by the sidebar recipe for "espresso pastry creme" in Isa Moskowitz's Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World.
Raspberry pie made with raspberries from my parents' backyard. Their berries are in season from late August until late October, which from what I hear is unusual, but there you go, they have an unusual variety of raspberry plant.

And finally, two pies that I made for Canadian Thanksgiving back in October - a chocolate hazelnut pie, and a pumpkin pie.

Memed - 8 true things

I've been tagged by Kenneth of Animal Rights Malta to create a post on eight true things about myself. I'm not going to follow the 'rules' of the game and post the rules or tag other people afterwards, but here goes anyway, eight true things about me:


1. Lately, some changes in my life have taken priority over blogging (if you hadn't already guessed by the infrequent updates).


2. I've rescued seven cats in the past few years; six off the streets of Montreal and one last-chance rescue who was going to be killed by the SPCA. I currently live with three of them: Azrael, Thor, and Jasmine. Azrael and Thor are shown in the photo. I had several other feline friends and acquaintances in my neighbourhood in Montreal who were not so lucky as the seven rescuees, which influenced my views as they became increasingly against the domestication of non-human animals. I love my feline family and friends very much and feel lucky to have them in my life, but I realize that the horrible suffering I've witnessed (only the tip of the iceberg as far as the situation of abandoned and homeless animals goes) is the inevitable result of humans' dominating and exploiting other living beings as property, even for what seems on the surface to be the benevolent, or at least benign, sake of having a companion to love and care for. Purposefully creating the situation of a relationship of life-long dependence, as the institutionalized concept of "pet ownership" imposes on every "pet" no matter how well cared for, is inherently exploitative.


3. I'm a runner. I completed my last marathon at the end of May in 3 hours, 35 minutes.


4. I've been vegan since 2004.


5. I now regret my involvement (it goes without saying, given the nature of this blog!), but in the past before my abolitionist views developed, I organized the Montreal Walk for Farm Animals for Farm Sanctuary. I doubt that my experience as a new vegan in being swayed by the large new welfarist groups is uncommon - the dominance of new welfarism in the current animal protection movement unfortunately leads people who become concerned about animal suffering to believe that if they want to get involved in activism to help non-humans, the only way to do so is to support new welfarist campaigns and large new welfarist organizations. This type of activism seems like "what everybody does" and is presented by the large groups (who are of course vying for donations and members, trying to appeal to anyone and everyone who has any inkling of concern for animal suffering) as the only way to do things in order to effect change.


A recent NY Times article featuring Farm Sanctuary and other new welfarist groups highlights many problematic aspects of new welfarism:

"Among animal rights groups, the 1980s were considered the decade of grass-roots activism. The 1990s saw the rise of court actions and ballot initiatives. This decade is about building budgets, influencing policy and cultivating elected officials, all with a deliberate focus on livestock."

What these trends really indicate is the watering down of the meaning of "animal rights", and the problems with the corporate organizational model and these organizations' striving to get "in" with the industry and lawmakers.

"Farm Sanctuary and other groups still know how to make the most of gory slaughterhouse footage from hidden cameras. The animals they call “rescued” — some abandoned, some saved from natural disasters, some left for dead at slaughterhouses — clearly started life as someone else’s property."

It's nice that the idea of animals as property is even mentioned here, but the problem with this statement is that it ignores the fact that it's the property status of animals that is at the core of the problem of animal suffering and that the new welfarist tactics of these groups do absolutely nothing to counter the property status.

"While some groups, like the Animal Welfare Institute, work with ranchers to codify the best methods of raising animals for meat and eggs, most, like Farm Sanctuary and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, ultimately want people to stop using even wool and honey because they believe the products exploit living creatures. But all of these believers have learned that with less stridency comes more respect and influence in food politics. So they no longer concentrate their energy on burning effigies of Colonel Sanders and stealing chickens. They don’t demonize meat — with the exception of foie gras and veal — or the people who produce it. Instead, they use softer rhetoric, focusing on a campaign even committed carnivores can get behind: better conditions for farm animals.
In some ways, it’s simply a matter of style."

Well, it may be somewhat true that the difference between new welfarist shock-tactic campaigns against the poor treatment of animals by particular companies like KFC and "respectable" welfarist campaigns that "don't demonize meat" could be considered a matter of style, it is definitely not merely style that differentiates any of these welfarist/new welfarist tactics and the stated "ultimate" goal of the new welfarist groups to eliminate the exploitation of animals. The tactics contradict the goals; it's a fundamental and irreconcilable difference.

"“Instead of telling it like it is, we’re learning to present things in a more moderate way,” [FS co-founder] Mr. Baur said. “When it comes to this vegan ideal, that’s an aspiration. Would I love everyone to be vegan? Yes. But we want to be respectful and not judgmental.”"

Sorry Mr. Baur, if you've decided that being vegan is what you need to do to live according to your ethics, you've already made your judgement. Is that a bad thing? And what exactly is respectful about basically misleading people by not saying what you really mean, by not asking for what you really believe to be right, by treating people like they cannot handle the truth about their food or like they would be incapable of making the same decision that you have made once they learn of this truth? There are more than just the two options of using PETA-style, offensive stunts that turn people away versus promoting "happy meat"-type reforms so as not to risk pushing anyone outside of their comfort zone. It is possible to present things respectfully without compromising your ethics.

"They have also learned to harness the power of celebrity in a tabloid culture, courting as spokespeople anyone famous who might have recently put down steak tartare in favor of vegetable carpaccio.

“I think there is a shift in public consciousness,” said Bruce Friedrich, vice president of international grass-roots campaigns for PETA. “When Cameron Diaz learns that pigs are smarter than 3-year-olds and she’s like, ‘Oh my God, I’m eating my niece,’ that has an impact.”"

Yes, organizations trying to use non-vegan spokespeople and speciesist reasoning to further the cause of animal rights has an impact - in strengthening the misrepresentations in the mind of the public of the meaning of animal rights and what is consistent with animal rights. A true shift in public consciousness, towards viewing non-humans as beings deserving of basic rights simply because they are sentient, rather than as resources that it's acceptable to exploit, is nowhere in sight and is actually pushed further into the realm of impossibility by welfarist and new welfarist tactics.

"Like PETA, the Humane Society has purchased enough stock in corporations like Tyson, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s and Smithfield’s to have the legal clout to introduce resolutions."

That's right, PETA and the HSUS invest in animal exploiting companies. Talk about being your own worst enemy...

"Like Mr. Baur, [HSUS president] Mr. Pacelle understands that not everyone is going to stop eating animals, so he focuses on what he calls the three R’s: refinement of farming techniques, reducing meat consumption and replacement of animal products. That way, he hopes, the Humane Society tent is big enough to include both ardent meat eaters and hard-core vegans."

...big enough to include anyone but those who understand that working within the welfare reform system means necessarily accepting the property status of animals as a given, and cannot secure non-humans any basic rights or even any level of protection that isn't in the economic favour of the property owners.

"The broader-umbrella approach is working."

Working to what end? Read on:

"Take the case of Wolfgang Puck. In March, he announced that he would stop serving foie gras and buy eggs only from chickens not confined to small cages. Veal, pork and poultry suppliers will have to abide by stricter standards, too.
For five years before the announcement, Mr. Baur’s group had been pressuring Mr. Puck to change his meaty ways. Mr. Puck, in an interview in March, said that had nothing to do with his new policies. He simply came to the conclusion that better standards were the best thing for his customers, his food and the animals. But he did credit the Humane Society for his education.
Mr. Puck met Mr. Pacelle through Sharon Patrick, a branding consultant he had hired. Ms. Patrick, the former president of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, believed animal welfare could be an important component in her plan for Mr. Puck."

So, basically "happy meat" is a great marketing opportunity for animal exploiters. Groups promoting animal welfare reform lend even more legitimacy to the idea that is being capitalized on here, that using animals instrumentally is okay as long as the animals were treated well - if the animal "rights" groups are pushing for these types of reforms, then this must be what is good for animals, right?

"The flurry of corporate animal welfare policies that began in 1999 with McDonald’s are simply sound corporate strategy, company representatives say."

Do we really want to be helping animal exploiters build sound corporate strategies? As the following quotes suggest, the industry will reform itself anyway because of customers' wishes.

"“Ask them and [PETA] will tell you they are the sole responsible party for bringing all these changes, but I have yet to see one of their campaigns produce results where they affected the company in terms of customer traffic or profitability,” said Denny Lynch, a spokesman for Wendy’s."

"“If we think consumers are a little more engaged in this, then so are we,” said Steve Grover, [Wendy's] vice president for food safety, quality assurance and regulatory compliance. “I look at it like a hockey player. I want to be there before the puck gets there.”"

"Cattle ranchers say pressure from PETA and Farm Sanctuary are not the reason they have started handling animals with more care. As the owners of Niman Ranch and Coleman Natural discovered, people are willing to pay more for meat from animals that are better cared for and whose origins can be traced from birth through processing."

There is no good reason for those of us who disagree in principle with exploitation to get involved with reforms of the very system of institutionalized animal exploitation we should be unequivocally rejecting. We should be focusing on clear, consistent public education about the property status of animals and its role as the cause of most non-human suffering, and veganism as the only solution. Welfarism is certainly no solution; even animal exploiters agree with animal welfare principles:

"“The groups that don’t want us to eat any animals at all are so radical and off-the-wall that we don’t even worry about them,” said Scott Sell, the owner of Quail Ridge Ag and Livestock Services, a Georgia cattle company. “In our industry we are the original animal welfarists. We take care of the animals because they take care of us.”"

Typical of how exploiters want people to believe that they have some kind of mutually beneficial relationship with their non-human slaves. When we recognize that sentient beings should have the right not to be treated as commodities, not to be the property of humans, the absurdity of such notions is clear.

"But Temple Grandin, the animal science expert from Colorado State University who first led McDonald’s executives on a tour of their suppliers’ slaughterhouses, believes that activists had plenty of impact on changes in how farm animals are cared for.
“Activist pressure starts it because heat softens steel,” she said. But she also offered some friendly advice. “What the activists’ groups have to be careful about is that you want to soften the steel and not vaporize it.”"

This is not surprising advice from someone who profits from animal exploitation.

"[...] [Chef] Mr. Trotter said animal welfare has become more important because American gastronomic consumers increasingly want to do right by the animals they eat.
“You don’t just have to be a card-carrying PETA member anymore to go that route,” he said in an e-mail message."

Here is exactly the kind of attitude that groups interested in animal rights should be actively trying to dispel, not reinforcing by participating in welfare reform campaigns. The idea that it is acceptable to use non-human animals as resources inevitably results in their suffering. Stating, or lending approval by association to the idea, that we can "do right" by animals while continuing to exploit them and kill them, only harms non-human animals.

"The chefs Mario Batali and Adam Perry Lang, along with the restaurateur Joe Bastianich, are creating a company called BBL Beef Brokers to produce humanely raised meat that is pampered from the farm to the slaughterhouse."

Pampered at the slaughterhouse... The human mind can rationalize anything, I suppose.

"“From the chef’s perspective it comes down to, ‘Yeah, the steak looks good but why is it not performing?’ ” Mr. Perry Lang said. “It’s because of how the animal was raised and handled. That’s not animal rights, but it is animal welfare.”"

At least Mr. Lang realizes that welfare reforms have nothing to do with animal rights and don't pose a threat to institutionalized animal exploitation.

"The gap between animal lovers and animal lovers who love to eat them is exactly what Mr. Baur, a man who eats noodles with margarine, soy sauce and brewer’s yeast and has only barely heard of Chez Panisse, would like to close."

Notice that vegans are being portrayed as deprived, culinarily-unsophisticated margarine-noodle eaters, maintaining the usual stereotypes of veganism as 'extreme' and 'difficult', and 'just not for everyone'.

"“We’re not really in philosophical alignment,” [Mr. Baur] said. “But I like to think we’re in strategic alliance.”"

A strategy that aligns those who want animal rights with those who have vested interests in exploiting animals, whether they profit from the exploitation financially or by means of their lifestyle habits, is not a sound strategy on the part of anyone who is against exploitation, to put it mildly.

Anyway, back to the eight true things!

6. I was a recipe tester for Dino Sarma's cookbook Alternative Vegan.

7. I have two M.Sc. degrees; one in pure math and one in statistics.

8. I'd like to learn Spanish. So far all I know are things like Como està? Muy bien, gracias. Oh, and here is the extent of my knowledge of Dutch: Heef de boer een leeuw in de tuin? Ja, de leeuw is vriendelijk! Also I took two years of Latin but now all I can say off the top of my head is: Mater tua caligas gerit. :P

Resource mobilization and the compartmentalizing of animal issues

Roger Yates has recently posted an entry on his always-excellent blog “On Human-Nonhuman Relations” that I would like to highlight. This entry, Mobilising Resources, discusses the underlying reasons that cause social movement organizations to moderate their message and engage in “organizational pragmatism”. In discussing this issue, Roger also draws attention to the problems with the compartmentalizing of animal issues that is often committed by animal advocacy organizations. This is a problem that has concerned me for a while now, and Roger has graciously allowed me to translate his essay into french to share its important message with my francophone readers on the french side of my blog. Please see Roger’s blog entry here.

How PETA is damaging to the animal rights cause

Please note: the general arguments against new welfarist tactics among the following apply to all new welfarist groups of course, however the focus of this post is on PETA, due to several recent comments brought up by PETA supporters in the blog comments as well as elsewhere.

PETA is not an animal rights organization, yet they have managed to use their large influence to create and foster a false impression of themselves with the public as "the" animal rights group. This is extremely harmful to the cause of animal rights since they engage in campaigns, and have organizational policies, that are incompatible with animal rights. So, not only are they engaging in campaigns that are inconsistent with animal rights, but they are promoting these campaigns as what animal rights is all about. No wonder much of the public, and some activists as well, do not know the difference between animal welfare reform and animal rights and that the two are fundamentally incompatible. At this point in time, this confusion about what animal rights means is one of the most important hurdles we must overcome on the road to the eventual end of animal exploitation - we must explicitly make the distinction between welfare and rights and explicitly show that it is the property status of animals that is the root of all atrocities committed against them. In short, we must first get people used to hearing a true animal rights position that explains the property paradigm while denouncing suffering and cruelty, instead of only focusing on cruel treatment, and that points out how the fundamental differences between our position and one that accepts animal use under certain circumstances guides our efforts away from welfare reform. PETA and other new welfarist groups actually perpetuate the confusion and misrepresent the concept of animal rights, and are thus not only doing nothing to overcome this important hurdle, but they are continually raising the hurdle.

As far as just a few specific examples from among many of PETA's problematic campaigns and policies:

-they do not advocate right-to-life for nonhumans (search this page for "we do not advocate 'right to life' for animals"), and accordingly, they kill healthy nonhuman animals, and are opposed to no-kill shelters as well as to trap-neuter-return, taking the position that the better way to help feral cats is to kill them (also summarized in same link as above).

Formerly a last-chance shelter rescue and a feral cat respectively, PETA would have killed S.P. and Oliver

-they give awards to slaughterhouse designers and vendors of "humanely raised" animal products, and promote non-vegan fast food products such as the Burger King veggie burger.

-they employ sexist ad campaigns that objectify women. Their reasoning seems to be that "sex sells", but how does portraying scantily clad women (and men, sometimes), who unfailingly fit the traditional-western-beauty-ideal and are presented as cheap entertainment, actually encourage anyone to reflect seriously on a social justice issue? One social justice issue (animal rights) cannot be furthered at the expense of another (feminism), as all forms of oppression are related. Their supporters may balk at accusations of sexism, with the excuse that the women have willingly participated in the campaigns. They may participate willingly, but in a society built on patriarchy that is so ingrained that many people cannot recognize it and some even think sexism has been resolved and is no longer a problem, this does not mean that the campaigns are not sexist. One discussion of PETA's commodification of women can be read here.

-They use non-vegan celebrity spokespeople in many campaigns - this encourages mixed messages that it is enough to be against fur even though you wear leather, or to be against meat even though you eat dairy. This only reinforces the impression that veganism is "extreme", and it furthers the compartmentalization of animal issues when what should be done Is to make the needed links between all exploitation of sentient beings even while focusing on one aspect or another of animal exploitation.

What about the "good" things that Peta does, in getting some people to go veg? Even if we disagree with welfarism and some of their other tactics, should we support at least that part of the organization? No, we should not. For example, I am sure that any given medical charity does some good things, but as vegans we do not support them if they fund any animal experiments at all, because to support them would be to give approbation to their policies and to encourage all aspects of their organization, some of which we are vehemently opposed to. Similarly we should not support PETA if we do not approve of their policies and tactics. People such as Gary Francione have already urged them at length to change their problematic positions, and they have completely refused.

For every one person who goes vegan because of them, how many do they alienate to the idea of animal rights (that is mistakenly associated with them), because of their sexism, because of their attention-seeking stunts that trivialize the issue? How many do they influence to instead embrace "humanely raised" animal products or to feel better about eating at fast-food places such as Burger King that have made some small change in husbandry standards which then gets promoted as a victory for animals, the new welfarist groups becoming nothing more than part of the animal exploiting industries' marketing team when they praise companies' new "humane standards" - and how many, of even those that are influenced to go vegan by PETA, continue indefinitely to believe that welfare reform tactics further the goal of animal rights rather than undermine it? The fact that some people do become vegan through them does not mean we must retain some sort of loyalty to them once we understand that their policies and campaigns are inconsistent with animal rights. They may get some people to go vegan, but if any of these people do undergo the full paradigm shift towards abolition that is needed for eventual social change, it is not because of PETA’s influence on them.

We don't need these groups and their campaigns; there is more than enough work to do without using new welfarist tactics, more than enough to do that is consistent with animal rights and does not force us to compromise our position by trying to work with exploiters or new welfarist groups. We don't need their resources such as pamphlets and posters to further our own vegan education campaigns; we can use those of the abolitionist sanctuary Peaceful Prairie or simply make our own for the time being. The abolitionist movement is in its infancy, and as it grows a greater variety of resources that promote a message consistent with abolitionism will become available for those who cannot create their own. In the meantime we do not need to compromise ourselves by distributing new welfarist groups' materials, for to do so is to imply approval of the policies of the group whose name appears.

Rejecting new welfarism is not a question of whether or not to speak out against animal exploiting companies perpetrating horrible abuses of animals such as those seen in undercover slaughterhouse videos, the implication of this claim being that if we do not participate in welfare reform campaigns then we do not care about these abuses or that we somehow want to allow them to continue. We can still speak out against cruelty and continue to expose the conditions of the animals' suffering, but in a way that recognizes that the underlying problem that allows this cruelty to occur is the property status of animals which permits their exploitation as resources. We still speak out against the cruelty, but not in a way that makes us compromise with the exploiters, that compels us to thank them when they make some small reform we have asked them for, that forces us to implicitly accept the legitimacy of animal exploitation by using the system of welfare reform, an institutionalized system that is based upon animals’ property status and the legitimacy of animal exploitation.

We cannot be effective in denouncing the property status of animals when we are working within this system. The system has a built in limit: it necessarily assumes, as its fundamental basis, the legitimacy of the property status of animals, and so there is no way to transcend that limit from within it. Welfare campaigns may seem on the surface to be all about reducing the suffering of the individuals being exploited, but they are in fact nothing more than a property rights issue. Animals are currently the legal property of their exploiters, and welfare reformists are trying to tell those exploiters how to use their property. The exploiters will fight the reforms, even the ones presented to them as economically advantageous, as no one likes to be told how to use their own property. To engage in these property rights campaigns with exploiters and legislators is to implicitly accept that it is a property rights issue, and using this institutionalized system of welfare reform only serves to further legitimize the system and thus reinforce the property status of animals. If we want rights for animals we must completely reject these counterproductive tactics and the groups like PETA who employ them and perpetuate the confusion about what "animal rights" means, essentially marginalizing animal rights and veganism all the while reinforcing the status of animals that allows them to be exploited in the first place.