The Animal Rights Movement: Time for a Major Shift

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

The Animal Rights Movement: Time for a Major Shift 

Backfire: the movement’s mistakes have failed nonhuman animals

A recent poll has shown that the public is much more supportive of the use of nonhuman animals now than it used to be in the past (the survey was carried out by YouGov for the Daily Telegraph). Around 70% of those questioned claimed that testing new medical treatments on nonhumans before they were tested on humans is acceptable. This shows a shift on the view that the public used to have on this issue, since past polls had shown much closer to 50-50 results on the issue. In light of these results, Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, has claimed that this was clearly showing what he called “a radical shift” in the British public opinion, and that, accordingly, “the tide has turned". The media have reported this with headings such as “Animal activist campaign backfires”, “Animal rights: backlash”, “Are animal rights activists terrorists?” and other similar ones. What we are witnessing now, for the first time since the movement started in the sixties and seventies, is that the movement isn't advancing but going backwards. This is the most worrying news that the movement could have received. But the saddest part of the story is that this poll’s results are not due to the movement being vigorously attacked from outside. Rather, the upsetting true is that it is due to ourselves, to animal rights activists, that we have ended up reaching a situation such as this. It is because of the strategies and campaigns that the animal rights movement has followed that we have got to this ruinous point. How can this be so? We can point at two important reasons for it:

1) The animal rights movement has been trying to further its case by means that society strongly rejects.

2) The animal rights movement has not taken efforts in trying to explain to the public the arguments that ground its position.

The reason has not been, then, that animal right activists have not been properly devoted to their cause. Animal rights campaigners have worked hard and full heartedly, giving the best of themselves to the cause. In order to succeed we must nevertheless analyse the results of our actions.

 

Why violent actions have put the public against the movement

The poll results have been also conclusive in another point. 77% of the interviewed defended that it is correct to term animal right activists ‘terrorists’, and only 15% said it was not. This is not strange, according to the kind of activities that have been carried out in the name of the movement. Most of the public condemn the use of violence, even when it’s carried out in support of causes that they will otherwise support. And, by violence, the public do not only understand the infliction of physical harm to individuals, but also things such as threatening attitudes or destruction of property. Maybe we can question such a view, perhaps we can certainly engage on philosophical discussions about what is or is not violence, but that isn’t the question at all. The problem is that, regardless of whether we consider that such attitudes are violent or not, the public do consider them violent, and do oppose it. It’s not that they have a certain dislike for them: rather they very firmly oppose them and consider them absolutely unacceptable. The poll has also shown this. Most of the people (93%) defended the right to hold peaceful demonstrations, but also the overwhelming majority opposed damaging property (95%) and harassing those who work in labs by calling them abusers (81%). So we can understand how is it that by carrying out activities that are considered violent we are generating a profound opposition against the movement among the public. The numbers are clear as they could be: the majority see animal rights activists as terrorists. This is an extremely serious problem, since in today's climate being considered a terrorist is one of the worst things one can be if one would wish to have the slightest influence on society. It could be claimed that this is due to a campaign aimed at criminalising animal rights activism. We can maybe try to blame “the media” or some other forces that support the use of animals for having spread such a view of animal rights activists. But it’s quite obvious that it hasn’t been difficult for them to do so. The kind of activism that has been carried out (involving threats, aggressions, destruction of facilities and the lot) is the kind of activism that many among the public would label as vandalism to say the least and terrorism if continued in an organised manner. So no wonder the media has depicted this kind of activism with such terms.

 

There has been no explanation to the public of the arguments against speciesism

Britain along with Sweden and maybe some other country, is possibly the place where activism for nonhumans is more developed. In spite of that, most of the public ignore the very reasons why we should reject discrimination against those who are not member of the human species. The very word speciesism is unknown to most of the public. This is startling, to say the least. How can it be that a movement that is so well known in the UK has not been able to explain its case? Animal rights propaganda very seldom includes any explanation of why all those who are able to feel suffering and joy should have their interest equally considered. No reason is given as to why discrimination against someone based on mere group membership is wrong. The result of this is that the public don’t know these arguments. They often think that we defend nonhumans because we find them cute or because we are sentimental. So whenever animal rights claims mean that any human interest is set back (as it happens with the interest in wearing certain kind of clothes, tasting certain “foods”, and the like) this is seen as outlandish. It wouldn’t be so if they understood the basis for equality among all sentient beings.

 

Why we should focus on convincing the public

Sometimes public opinion is dismissed by some activists. The argument for doing so is that we should focus on winning a ‘war’ against ‘animal abusers’. This entails a deep confusion. Such assumption is based on the idea that there’s a small group of people (those who breed, experiment on or kill nonhumans themselves) who are abusing them because the rest of the society let them do so. And this is the most mistaken view of the problem that could be imagined. The actual truth is completely different from this. Those who directly, physically harm the animals (those who work or own a farm, slaughterhouse, circus or animal experimentation lab) do so simple because the public demands that this is done. People eat the flesh of nonhuman animals, wear their skins, like watching shows in which they perform, and so on. The wants of the public means that some people are required to exploit nonhumans so that these wants can be met. If all the companies that use nonhuman animals were closed down by activists then new ones would be set up because the public want them to exist. Moreover, when we write “the public” we can read the overwhelming majority of humanity. So it’s most of humanity that, whether directly or indirectly, is to blame for the use of nonhumans. Those who buy meat or leather are those responsible for the exploitation of nonhuman animals. If no one bought these products then no animals would be killed for such purposes. So what trying to run a ‘war’ against ‘animal abusers’ would really imply is nothing short than running a war against the overwhelming majority of humanity. Such a war is obviously impossible to win. If we want to help nonhuman animals we need to convince people not to use them. Most of those who use nonhumans have never really reflected on whether they have a justification to discriminate against nonhumans. –one example of this can be found in the case of philosopher Tom Regan, a man well known for defending the recognition of rights for nonhumans, who previously and unquestioningly ate meat, went fishing and worked as a butcher–. According to this, we can easily infer what goes on in the specific case of so-called “animal experimentation” (i.e., experimentation on nonhuman animals but not on human animals). Those who perform experiments on nonhumans do so because we live in a society in which there is a demand for such experimentation. The paradigm in current biomedicine research is based on such experiments and there are laws requiring it. The underlying idea is, as it has been said before by those who oppose speciesism, that we live in a society that discriminates against nonhumans simply because they aren’t members of the same species we are. This is why the claim that those who perform experiments on nonhuman animals are evil, sadistic people can’t be taken seriously by the public. The reason is simple: it’s not just a simplistic vision, it’s plain wrong. Those who perform ‘animal experimentation’ don’t do so because they are ‘sadistic animal abusers’: they do it because the public want them to do it. So if we want to bring an end to experiments of this sort we need, therefore, to convince people to oppose them. Unfortunately, there’s no other way. There are no shortcuts. The survey results have been crystal clear: violent tactics not only don’t further the cause: they make it much more difficult to defend. An example of all this can be found in another news item that has appeared in the media recently:

 

Blair’s support of experimentation on nonhumans

In a move without precedence, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has signed a manifesto in favour of animal experimentation. Nothing of the like had taken place before. It could be said that this means that a public representative, who is meant to stand on behalf of all the citizens of his nation, instead of being impartial gives his support to a particular position (the one defending animal experimentation). We must in any case reflect on what this is showing to us. Mr. Blair wouldn’t have given his support to animal experimentation if he wasn’t confident that this was a political stance worth taking. If animal experimentation was publicly questioned in a significant way, or if those who denounce it had the sympathies of the public, Blair would never have supported it. If he has done so, it’s because he has considered that the political costs that he would get from it are certainly less that the advantages he would get (especially in a situation such as the present one, in which his popularity has dropped to the minimum). As the poll we already commented on shows, this is the case, whether we like it or not. Certainly many of us will strongly reject a position such as Blair’s. But many among the public will not. The sad thing with this is that it could have been otherwise if they hadn’t been driven to see those opposing animal experiments as violent fanatics and instead they had been informed about the arguments opposing speciesism.

 

An antispeciesist, vegan movement is needed

The defence of nonhumans could have been carried out in a very different way. There are two areas in which there is a lot still to be done. One has been already commented upon: the arguments against speciesism should be communicated to the public, it’s necessary to create a public debate about them. The other has to do with what the public can more directly do against the use of nonhumans: veganism. Although the way in which people can more directly oppose the use of nonhumans is by stopping taking part in it, campaigns aimed at changing public minds regarding this have been substituted by those trying to introduce new ‘animal welfare’ laws or closing down certain companies. These do not mean a reduction in the number of nonhumans that are being used, but only some small changes concerning how they are treated or where they are exploited –if a lab is closed down, then the experiments that it performed will be done elsewhere–.

Veganism should occupy a central place in our agenda. And veganism can be promoted by many means which don’t imply putting the public against us. This should affect in particular the practice that, by far kills more animals, which is, without any doubt, fishing. Not so-called “sport fishing”, or angling, but commercial fishing. The number of nonhumans that are used for ‘animal experimentation’ is certainly huge, but it’s rendered little if compared with the number of animals that are killed in slaughterhouses. But even the number of animals who die in slaughterhouses is also rendered little if compared with the number of those who die because they are fished for being eaten –we must remember that the number of, say, sardines or cods that are needed for getting the same amount of flesh to be eaten that can be obtained by killing, say, a cow, is certainly significant–. In contrast with this, very little has been done to convince the public to give up fish-eating, especially if compared with the efforts that have been spent to oppose other areas of animal slavery, such as, for instance, animal experimentation. All this, in spite of the clear figures brought by a comparison of the number of the animals that die due to both practices. As we have commented, the movement is now in a very worrying situation not because we have been unlucky or because we have been strongly countered, but rather because of the kind of actions we’ve been doing ourselves. According to this, the good news is that we can change this situation by making a shift on the kind of activism that is carried out. An antispeciesist and strongly pro-veganism movement is necessary. We can make a change. And we need to do it. To be more exact: nonhuman animals need that we do it.

 

Rights for Animals

[Brandon Becker]

I'm paying attention, Sam. You make a perceptive point about militant tactics.

 

I recommend everyone read Daniel Peyser's "Beyond Pacifism" essay:

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue05_beyond.pacifism....

 

Excerpt:

"Abolitionists frequently compare the animal liberation movement to the abolitionist movement of the Nineteenth Century. Other prominent theoreticians within abolitionism also compare it to the peace movement, or at least its logical extension. There are at least two fundamental differences between the abolition movement of the Nineteenth Century and the modern peace movement. First, one was effective, the other not. Second, one ultimately came down to a combination of political and armed struggle, whereas the other assembled its forces only in a political sense. We can build a modern abolitionist movement or an extension of the modern peace movement, keeping in mind there is a very real dichotomy. It is not a decision between victory or defeat, but between the possibility of victory and the utter certainty of defeat. We can model a movement after Gandhi, or we can consider the reality of the situation: excluding any form of struggle at this point is tactical suicide. If we're in it to win, we need John Brown."

[Sam Reynolds]

Why do people keep ignoring my obervation on the IRA or the freeing of slaves by civil war? I think it may be that these facts are unpalatable to those who oppose direct action!

[Tim Gier]

I can accept that people do not become vegan overnight.  I can also accept that our message

advocating the end to the exploitation of other animals must be crafted such that it resonates in

the best ways possible to those most people possible.  What I can't accept is that a campaign, or

outreach effort of any kind, which advocates for something other than veganism or abolition can

ever lead to veganism or abolition.  There is no reason to think it would, and every reason to

think it wouldn't.  When the message put forth by a group is one that leads the general public to

believe that we can create and enforce laws which will protect other animals while their

exploitation continues, that message is wrong and it will reinforce the idea that using other

animals is acceptable.  When we tell people that by being vegetarian they are fulfilling, in any

meaningful way, any of their moral obligations to other animals, we are wrong and we will be

perpetuating the use of animals as food and food producers. 

 

I can accept that others cannot transition to veganism overnight, but as they begin to move

towards being vegan, I will continue to challenge them, as I challenge myself, to become more

vegan every day.  And, when it comes to what other advocates are doing, as Roger said, "this is not some divisive attack on other animal advocates who, I have no doubt, have the best interests of nonhuman animals at the forefront of their minds all the time. It is a plea for us to carefully consider what we support and think about what we want to spend our time and energy doing." Coincidentally, this is the same thing I would say to those who commit acts of property destruction and/or violence.  I will not condemn them, or question their motives, but I would ask each of them to carefully consider whether their actions are in accord with the claims of movement that is, at its core, about respecting, in word and in deed, the basic rights to life, liberty and bodily integrity of all sentient beings, human as well as nonhuman.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hi Den: 

May be due to translation problems, but I thought that you base your argument in an attack rather than provide an argument. 
This modus operandi and prevents development of a debate that either we leave our discussion, or take a different attitude. 
You know nothing about me. Even know if I agree to release animals or harm to businesses. 
All you know is that I am not in favor of releasing animals violently, violently or hurt business. 
But if I agree to release animals, and agree to harm companies that exploit animals. 

I can argue it will agree to do so, but without violence. But if you do not agree with your approach and you'll be eligible to claim they are only excuses to do nothing, then I will not. 

Here in Spain there are people doing the same thing you do. But here we do not pay much attention. Here we often discuss these issues seriously because they seem very serious. And bring all the arguments we make to be clear as they should do things. 

What of the 500 pigs I say this because if it is to save lives, violence against carriers seems harmless, ineffective results. If violence is used to harm a carrier transporting animals ... do not the pigs would carry not going to end in a slaughterhouse? 

The use of violence as an approach that I think you are defending (if the translation is correct) is an extreme simplification of the business world. I think to harm the companies have to fight in another place, a place where they are vulnerable. There are two factors leading to reach non-human slaughterhouses 
1) That there is demand. 
2) That there is supply. 

With the violence that glimpse, not just demand and supply does not end. Therefore, among other things, I'm not in favor of violence. To affect the demand you have to convince consumers, not producers attack. 
To affect supply, we must attack the supply where it develops. If you end up with a firm but demand for meat and there are places where operators can sell the meat, new companies emerge. 

If you choose to attack companies, you have to get where they can not sell the meat. That's how you fight against the consumption of certain products in a capitalist society. 

[Sam Reynolds]

Den... I agree with all that you say in your last post. The SHAC campaign has been a brilliant one and you are right, it has raised awareness and also made people question why some tactics are used or indeed needed. How funny and very sad what you wrote about most people here only caring about who wins x factor. Sad because it's true. As a society we are more selfish and consumerist than we have ever been. I admire and support every one of those that have worked so hard for SHAC especially our AR prisoners.

Roger........if you think everyone is going to become a vegan you're living in a fantasy! In an ideal world perhaps but not in our life time. By all means campaign for a vegan life style but don't kid yourself that by doing this you are moving any nearer to giving animals rights. SHAC was founded by people who love animal! I suspect that they didn't employ a PR guru to help them with the acronyms!
You say the leaflet refers to "it". I'm sorry, did they know if it was a girl or a boy? After the birth of all three of my children, I asked is 'it' a girl or a boy?
As for not being able to influence politics, I don't agree with this either. I know talking about the IRA is sensitive but let me say again, their tactics brought people to the negotiating table because not only did they murder, they also caused a massive financial burden to the state! No one signed a pettition or went around advocating a slave free life style. They went to war!

[DEN FRIEND]

Roger, We have already discussed, at length, the abolitionist approach to animal liberation, which we agree on. It is not me or people like me we have to convince. Most people become involved in AR from reading quite a 'tame' leaflet. Becoming even a vegetarian can be a daunting idea. How ever much we would like it, they are unlikely to become vegans overnight, it is too big a leap and to insist on it would put most people off.

 

I would say that the SHAC campaign informs the public on many levels. Not only about the cruelty involved in all aspects of the industry; from shipping traumatized primates half way round the world, the uselessness of animal experiments as well as how results drawn from them leads to human illness and even death. It also informs the public how our fears are exploited by the pharma giants, the state and big corporations. Most importantly the campaign quite categorically states that animals are not there to benefit humans.

 

You are a very hard person to please Roger, are you ever satisfied with anything? Does anyone measure up to your exacting standards? I am not responsible for the name 'Shac" nor any of the printed material. I am taking on board what you say and will think about it though. We should remember that whilst there are some very clever and talented people in AR, (I'm not talking about organisations) we do not have access to copy writers, PR agencies or the like and everyone is doing the best they can, I certainly don't think it is fair to imply anyone is 'sloppy'.

 

Yeah, LACs was not a good example, however a lot of AR people supported them in the run up to the ban and since. Sabs are still running around with vid cameras in the hope that lac will prosecute hunters caught red handed.

 

I'm going out, so running out of time to answer all your points, have a good evening.

[DEN FRIEND]

Fortress was a major shareholder in HLS. They recently pulled out and cited that their main reason for doing so was the weekly protests that took place outside their offices. I have listened to the taped conversation that took place between Shac and Fortress and know this to be true. I'm afraid I couldn't tell you how much money has been spent during the SHAC campaign. I imagine it's a pittance in comparison to the money spent by organisations such as the league on their anti hunt campaign, although I could be wrong. Why do you ask?

It will be interesting to see if the state will continue to bail out HLS in the current financial climate. HLS cannot exist without financial backing from private institutions such as Fortress. Of course they will dig their heels in and support each other, but money rules the day, only profits count to shareholders. 

If HLS were to go under and I sincerely hope it does, it will have serious implications for the rest of the industry. Yes, they may go elsewhere, but was that ever a reason to stop campaigning against Newchurch or Shamrock or any other animal/human abuser?

I did mention that I was also leafleting, that is education is it not?

[DEN FRIEND]

Why 500 pigs? There might have been one pig in the transporter, (which we would have been able to home), or no pigs! Are we simply creating obstacles to justify our non action? The transporter would not have been able to take any more pigs to the slaughter house that had already been rendered useless. These are the sort of actions that occurred in the UK in the 80's and are happening now in other countries. One could argue that the publicity generated by such actions at least provides a platform to discuss why the actions were necessary. We can appeal to peoples compassion, but the bottom line is that the majority of people only care about who wins x factor! Waiting for the public to come round to our way of thinking could/will take an awful long time. Where as interfering with companies profit margins (by whatever means, not necessarily violent) has the desired effect; they pull out or are not able to continue abusing animals. Absolutely I agree that everybody should give up abusing animals/humans/the planet voluntarily, realistically will they?

[DEN FRIEND]

Yesterday I spent the day taking part in SHAC demos in London outside financial institutions who invest in HLS. Whilst in London we picked up confirmation from Fortress, who until recently was the 4th largest shareholder in HLS. SHAC tactics work.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hi Tim

I think it's a translation error. I said that "if society is opposed to any reason," but said "if society is opposed for whatever reason." 
Compare two things that are not successful as I think now I will comment: 
If society, we conduct our message, creating a kind of rejection of activism, then we should change strategy. Change of strategy involves changing the type of activism. You can maintain the kind of activism, but there you go creating a feedback to know whether what we do is causing society, 90%, we see as terrorists. 

Regard speciesism obviously society opposes. But is not the same because the objective of our movement is to eradicate speciesism, but can not say the same of a kind of strategy. That's why we rely on how society receives the message to change it, and to change the strategy, but we can not rely on what society says to stop oppose speciesism, because then we would be changing movement. 

Feedback is necessary, and communication is a two, a transmitter and a receiver. If we want is to express how you feel, no matter what I think the receiver. But if you want to switch to receiver, then obviously it is very important that your message receives. 
And if you have to change parameters of the strategy, then the basis for these changes, how to analyze whether positive or negative, whether it works or does not work, the feedback from the recipients of the message. 

I think someone should maintain a kind of activism, citing the effectiveness of their activism to get what they sought. And if you see that does not work, or not based on the feeback, has an ethical duty to study the feedback to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of their activism and strategy. Many lives depend on it. 

There are many ways to achieve an objective (hence there are different lines of work) and you can change the type of activism without changing the lens type. That is, you can change the strategy in many ways, while fighting speciesism. 

In particular, as noted in the previous message, my opposition to violence is not due to social opinion. In fact, I believe that activism is a kind of awareness, so it is perceived as indifferent society. 
Commented that the problem is that if you destroy not get to save anyone. To save someone should find a safe place for him, and if I do not see. 

I see very confusing objectives. Violence as a means of avoiding death or transportation to the slaughterhouse. Violence as a means of causing harm to operators ... All incompatible with a strategy of awareness. 
To me it's not that I think it is wrong to use violence. What I find is that it is incompatible as a means of awareness. That is, I think that using violence is not got that society is made vegan. 

If they manage to save lives then if I may seem justified violence. Now have to see if it can save lives without violence, and what the impact on the awareness movement. 
If the person who uses violence believes in the path of awareness, then it is your duty to assess whether what you do may harm awareness and if it is avoidable. 
What I do not seem consistent is that someone tries to raise awareness and in turn use violence without knowing how society perceives the violence. 

If society sees us as radicals, then, as I said, change the strategy. Again, change the strategy does not involve changing what we do. But if they see us as terrorists, or extremists, and keep doing the same and just as ... you have to do is change something to stop seeing us as terrorists or extremists. 

I see no advantages to using violence to save lives. I see no advantage in using violence to make vegan society. Therefore, it seems unjustified violence to society to make vegan