Abolitionist Veganism

First of all, I asbsolutely respect Keith Mann, what he's done and what he stands for.

But, I disagree.

To me the abolitionist point of view is very contentious -- as it is to others. To me, abolitionists use animals currently subject to horrors beyond our belief as politicals pawns. It will take far, far longer for people to be brought over to the abolitionist side of things, while I believe it will be much faster to bring them over to the -- as Francione has coined --  "New Welfarist" side.

By campaigning on this "New Welfarist" side, you don't -- no matter what Francione tells you -- have to NOT believe in the ultimate, absolute liberation of animals. It's just a different way to get there.

I understand the saying "those who don't read history are deemed to repeat it." And I equally understand Mann's reference to the abolition of human slavery and the abolition of non-human animal slavery. BUT, let's be honest; human slavery was NEVER as intensive as animal agriculture is today. Never were slaves kept in crates where they couldn't turn around, as the non-human animal slaves are kept today. Never were the slaves milked till they bled, as the non-human animal slaves are milked today. And never was human slavery as widely accepted as it is today-- it was widely railed against from the outset.

We have the opportunity today to unite and campaign for realistic, incremental change which will see the lives of animals improved beyond their belief. Though others disagree, I strongly believe this will set a platform for the future where we'll see all the cages finally smashed which have confined animals for far, far, far too long, ringing in the day where we'll see our collective goal come true: animal liberation.

I'm always a little amused when the "extremist" name-calling comes out... It's becoming such a knee-jerk retort that surely soon enough the word will be meaningless to the general public. I have seen RSPCA and other 'non contentious' welfare organisations labelled 'extremists' and 'radicals' by industry (and government) when it suits them.

I recall when the UK Govt document regarding the recommendation that the public reduce meat intake to help the environment - was leaked - that the Aussie industries were calling the UK Government (the UK Government!) extremists...!

I have to believe that anyone with half a brain can see through this rhetoric and realise that this type of labelling lacks any substance and is solely designed to marginalise groups -- and it is almost always a tactic that is used when all other arguments and justifications have dried up

Keith Mann is right.

I've been campaigning for animal rights for only five years but have been very dedicated and buoyed to see some sight of improvement (more people becoming veg). But in the last couple of years have noticed this rise in the welfare stance from what was the 'animal rights' camp and it's really distressing me *immensely*.

I have been thinking exactly what Keith Mann says here about the PR divide and conquer! I didn't know this, but I've been suspecting that may have been what was happening! Think about forum trolls too. This place is ripe for them.

That post about increases of veal by 45% of course that's true. Tell people it's kind and they'll eat more of it. I've noticed chicken shops promoting 'free range' chicken and I know they're not free range. Another one has a big poster that says 'raised in barns not cages'. Now all of us in here know broilers are cramped in filthy packed barns etc. Marketing and PR is definately fighting back here.

I've just got a copy of Rain without Thunder and have read the intro only. It's too true. I don't understand why people criticise Prof. Francione, he's one of the few people who understands what's going on, Oh and Keith Mann too. Thanks for this post Apple Scruff.

Campaining on a soft line is not a different way to get there, it's a guarantee to *never* get there.
You never negotiate by starting off at the lowest denominator and animals lives should not be negotiable.
People who truly believe in the *rights* of animals would understand this. Animal rights is about rejecting animals as being the property of humans. It's a justice movement, It's about fighting for the justice for animals. To acknowledge they should be themselves for themselves, not for the purpose (or property) of humans.

Matt, I love reading your posts because you are quite wise, but I disagree with what you say is realistic. It is unrealistic to believe that keeping animals locked in an economic system can ever grant them freedom.

It is unrealistic to believe that keeping animals locked in an economic system can ever grant them freedom.
It is unrealistic to believe that keeping animals locked in an economic system can ever grant them freedom.

How can we see the lives of animals improved beyond their belief by fighting for cages a few centimetres bigger for hens? Incidently, when these type of 'reforms' are announced they give the industry years to phase them in and then they often don't even do it.I recall this being announced here before. The date was 2012. Well guess what, it's not happening anymore because eventually the egg farmers did a big whinge. Kind of like the jockeys with the whipping ban. Yes, two perfect examples. It's *modern* history (like a couple of years ago and a couple of weeks ago) and some people still don't get this.

Ask Animals Australia about how their lobbying for pigs went when the Code of Practise for the Pig was under review ...
Zippo. Big FAT zippo. This is wasting effort/time which could be spent educating people to go vegan.

Vegan should not be a scarey word. Vegetarian was once. We need to get over this conservative stuff. To fight for justice you need a backbone.

Absolutely! It's a tactic to shut us down (sadly it works on people who aren't so brave). Yep, ignore it. If you don't want  to wear army boots fine, but slippers won't work fighting for justice ;o)

PS. Why would 'animal rights' people promote free range? OMG!!! We are talking about animals.
Yes, suggesting people eat animals, ie. putting a commercial businesses interests over animals.

These are not animal rights people. They are disingenuous, hypocritical  imposters.
You see, this is the 'divide and conquer'. They are infiltrating us.



Off to strap on the army boots now!

Hmmm... this might just be semantics, but we're talking about respecting the 'interests' of animals, right? I mean, it always makes me feel a little uneasy to say we should be fighting for 'justice'. Justice reminds me of retribution, which isn't really an interest I would attribute to most animals (maybe ourselves tho!). I mean, it won't help animals to punish cruel industry operators -- only to end these cruel industries. I like to think we are campaigning for compassion instead.  

Yes I agree Karen, I think its semantic confusion. In addition to interests, I'd add self worth and value. Justice is not necessarily punishment or retribution ... in this sense I mean about what's just, fair and respectful.

Animal rights is a social justice movement, just as gay rights, womens' rights, civil rights, environmentalism etc. There has been a lot of work/research done by sociologists and philosophers on such social justice movements.

Here's a goodie ... Dr Roger Yates is an interesting sociologist (who's still very much alive) to watch (read his blog)
http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/

BTW. My 'army boots' were merely metaphorical ;o) I have much luff to give

advoc8,

just picking your brain -- do you think it's possible to both encourage veganism as the moral baseline for those who care about the suffering of animals AND lobby industry, and the wider public, for incremental change in agribusiness?

to me, it seems that one of the reasons why people don't accept the "new welfarist" side of things is because they think it's dishonest; telling people they're being humane, when really they're not. for example, do you think it is possible to 'market' free range as something "less cruel" than what already is, while marketting that to be totally removed from animal exploitation the only option is veganism?

again, to me, i think this just increases our 'audience' -- people who are willing to listen, and make changes for themselves (i'm sure you'll agree, some people just -- for some reason unknown -- won't go vegan!)

sorry if this doesn't make sense... but it is 1am

Hey Matty.

Para 1
Yes I think it's possible because people are doing it, but I know results aren't possible. I think it's [1] a waste of time/effort/money [2] promotes its okay to eat animals which is morrally indefensible for a true AR person to do it because agribusiness is about breeding animals for human wants and profit (the animals interests will NEVER be met) [3] sets the movement back miles by upsetting us that can see what's happening [4] makes the situation worse for animals by promoting to people its okay to eat animals.

Para 2
I don't think it's dishonest (though I guess because it upsets me so much, I might have thought that wrongly as an emotional reaction) but naive because the people doing it are bowing and pandering to the animal abusing industries. In affect helping them sell more product and stopping compassionate people from chosing a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. I've seen this first hand when I had 'AR' volunteers handing out postcards about stall reforms. The people took the postcards, said "how terrible, something needs to be done" signed the postcard and trotted off smiling. It doesn't work, they think the did something. But those postcards do nothing. However when I observed people watching my Chew On This (PETA) video and approached them in a friendly/caring manner to empathise with them about what they saw and explain the best way they can help animals is to stop eating them, it's what I did so easily, it's not hard, blah blah blah. I tell you, nothing works better.

It is possible to market free range as something less cruel ... it is happening because it (marketing) works! That's commerce, it sells. But maybe your question is "do I agree that it is OK to say it's less cruel"? To that my answer is "no" because in the end, it keeps animals locked into the system of dominance and they will never be liberated. They still get inseminated, forced to live lives of not their chosing, shoved on the same horrid trucks and shipped off to be slaughtered a horrible death. The more people think its ok, the more it sells, then more competition will buy into this system, then things start to slip real quick as if they wern't bad enough to start with. Realistically, anyone who raises animals for food, entertainment etc (profit) honestly doesn't care for the animal as a person (being), they care about the 'product' (money). We need to keep campaigning against using animals as units. People are getting it. Also, no you can't do both because of what I said about you're keeping animals locked into the economic system.

Para 3
I understand why you think it increases the audience. This has been sold to you by calling you an 'extremist' a 'radical' a 'hippy pot smoking vegetarian'. This type of language shuts a lot of people down. But you went vegan, I did, so many people are and that's why this language comes out to stop more from 'getting on the vegan bandwagon'. The more people see and hear vegan and get to know how easy and healthy it is, automatically promotes welfare. But when we start doing it, the animals are doomed because they have no one left. Things will never ever improve with welfare, people are eating more and more meat.

And ...
Yes, it's late, go to bed! You always make sense. Don't bow to hegemony Matt, but you're smart, you won't for long, you'll see through it ;o) And you have youth on your  side ... oh so promising!

I don't think the situation is necessarily as black or white as it seems. In my experience convincing someone to adopt a cruelty-free lifestyle is far less about saying 'go vegan' as it is educating that person about the cruel reality of animal industries. Most people don't make ethically conscious decisions because they are uninformed how to. And most people don't like to be preached at, but deep down they do want to be informed.

One of the tactics Animals Australia uses is informing the public through lobbying action. This tactic not only exposes cruelty issues to masses of individuals, but also uses this same momentum to put pressure on government and industry wherever possible. For example, earlier this year they alerted their online supporters to the epic failure of the dairy industry to consider the welfare of bobby calves in the review of the 'Land Transport of Livestock Standards and Guidelines'. Among other atrocities the reviewed standards basically allowed dairy calves destined for slaughter (read: waste product) to starve...

The pressure that the alert was able to put on the government at the time forced a review of the review and embarrassed those responsible for signing off on the standards when they realised that they couldn't push any old regulations through thinking that the community wasn't watching. Whilst this doesn't mean that it's OK to kill 1 million bobby calves every year, it does mean that they might not suffer AS MUCH before their premature deaths. It also means that countless thousands of people are now aware of the callousness of the dairy industry and their disgraceful 'waste product' -- and are therefore less likely to consume cows' milk. The effects of this action were clearly 2-fold, and I believe it had the opposite effect of 'entrenching' bobby calves in a system of suffering; on the contrary -- it showed the decision makers that despite the system that exists today, they cannot do 'whatever they want' with the lives of animals.

Countless people I've met have remarked that it was this one e-mail alert that was the catalyst to them becoming vegan Of course, it won't work like that for everybody, but employing tactics like these leaves the door firmly open to those others without alienating them, so that over time they can become more informed and be in a better position to make ethically conscious choices.

PETA uses similar tactics in the U.S. whereby they will mount a campaign against a fast food giant (for example), to implement humane slaughter standards. This campaign vehicle allows them to inform individuals of the horrific abuse animals suffer in the meat industries whilst also putting pressure on industry to reduce suffering RIGHT NOW. If you've been involved in street leafleting for campaigns like these you'll know that the impact on the ground means more informed citizens, and as a result, more vegetarians. On top of that, when this campaign was waged against KFC Canada, KFC not only implemented more humane handling and slaughter methods -- reducing immense suffering right now -- they also added a faux chicken item to their menus which helped to make veg food more mainstream!

I don't think the power of these types of institutional changes to reduce suffering should be downplayed, and I've never seen any evidence to suggest that they deter informed people from making ethically responsible decisions in their own lives.

I don't believe these types of tactics fit any one definition that I understand 'welfarist' or even 'new welfarist' to be, as I think these labels attempt to make what are multi-faceted and strategic approaches to reducing suffering and advocating cruelty-free lifestyles overly simplistic.

At the end of the day I don't think we will be able to end all animal abuse with just one method. I believe it's fortunate that we have countless groups and countless people using countless tactics to create a kinder future. I also believe that fuelling arguments between people with different tactics is in ITSELF a destructive 'divide and conquer' mechanism at work. There are so few of us working to help animals that we can't afford to let that happen!!