First, ARZone’s policy is to invite (not promote) a range of people from within (and without) the animal advocacy movement to explain their vision of human-nonhuman relations and to answer questions about that, and about issues that arise within the animal movement. Some of these questions ARZone members submit are straightforward inquiries about how long someone has been vegan or what their favourite vegan meal may be. Other questions are far more probing, asking, for example,whether people are vegan and if not, why not. As a general matter, most guests are asked about their published works, their activities, and their position on what’s best in terms of helping nonhuman animals.
Second, the range of guests covers pretty much the whole spectrum of people to be found in the “animal rights movement.” Previous ARZone chat guests have been extremely well known, like Bruce Friedrich of PeTA and conservationist Captain Paul Watson, while others are lesser-known grassroots activists such as Jordan Wyatt, Jo Charlebois, Barbara DeGrande, Cameron Blewett and Minku Sharma. Others still are the theoretical writers of the movement, or commentators on the movement, while some are the activists involved in forms of militant direct action. Some guests have been involved in animal advocacy for many years, like ALF co-founder Ronnie Lee, while others are relatively new to campaigning.
Not all of these people can successfully have the label “new welfarist” attached to them – but that does not matter anyway, since all guests are subject to being questioned about their stance on human-nonhuman relations, animal advocacy, and topics like the use of violence or single-issue campaigns.
A recent claim suggests that the views and opinions of ARZone chat guests cannot be adequately questioned because of the very format of the guest interviews conducted in the site’s chat room (see previous blog entry). This criticism is misplaced. For example, in the run-up to a guest’s appearance on ARZone, its members are asked to submit the questions that form the pre-registered part of every chat. Members can submit multiple questions, and often individuals get to ask two or three in this first section of a chat. For each question they have the opportunity of writing a spontaneous follow-up question – all they do is write in the chat room something like, “can I have a follow-up on that please?” and then people wait for them to consider what they want to ask. The same people can also take part in the open session which follows the pre-registered part of the chats.
This means that one individual – in one chat – can ask 4, 5, 6 questions.
Furthermore, along with all ARZone members, the same person can comment on the guest interview once the transcript is published.[1] Moreover, if they choose, they same individuals can write a blog entry on ARZone about something in the transcript and they can write something in the forum section of the site. For those not familiar with ARZone (like many of its critics it seems), the chat transcripts are not presented fleetingly on the site – they are permanent features and can be commented on, or referred to, weeks, months or even years after the event. If members visit the ARZone chat room at times when the guest chats are not running, they can start of live conversation about the content of a transcript or something that was said in an interview.
Does that sound like ARZone is merely “a platform” for new welfarists?
[1] I notice more and more that people send internet links to others about an article or feature they may have seen. However, it is not necessarily the article itself that concerns them, it is often some of the comments that follow. They may alert their friends and colleagues to particular comments, while virtually ignoring the original article. This is what can occur in ARZone too. There is no reason, in other words, to think that what’s written in a chat transcript is more important, or more educative, than what is written in the comments following a guest interview. Over time, ARZone has become an archived resource for animal advocates who can see what people stand for – and what their critics make of what they stand for. I cannot understand why anyone fails to see that ARZone is but a very useful educational tool which, moreover, they can actively contribute to and ensure that their views are heard. ARZone tries very hard not to censor anyone’s opinion – and certainly not because of a mere disagreement with a particular view. Those with the best ideas surely need not fear others with different ones.
