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]

This essay is long but well worth reading:

"Defining Terrorism" by Steven Best and Anthony Nocella, II

http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/DefiningTerrorism.pdf

[Sam Reynolds]

Tim,
Yet again your intelligence and eloquence dwarfs me.

[DEN FRIEND]

Well said Tim

[Tim Gier]

Carolyn,

 

Whether I feel pain, or you feel terror, and to what degrees, are subjective matters, for reach of us individually.  Whether we feel those things, and how we feel them, are our judgments, about us, by us, about our internal states.  As such, only I could know the depth and nature of my pain, and only you could know the depth and nature of your terror.  Perhaps, as an objective matter, we can see what another person is going through, and think, or assume that they are experiencing pain, or terror.  But that wouldn't mean that they are.  For example, I'm sure you've witnessed something happen to someone and have said "Wow, that must hurt!" and then hear the response, "Not at all, I didn't feel a thing."  In the same way, we might see a women and her child in what we think is a terrorizing situation, only to find out that neither of them felt, or would describe themselves as feeling, terrorized.  We are all entitled to our own feelings when we are the subject of the experience, and it would be inappropriate for anyone to discount or amplify our internal experiences.

 

But when we apply the term "terrorism" to certain acts or actions, we are not using the term to describe the internal mental states of the victim.  In fact, in the case of random car bombings that kill indiscriminately in surprise attacks, none of the victims who are instantly killed have any meaningful sense of terror at all.  The terror these acts may intend to produce, when they produce it, is often not in the victims, but in the surviving population, or in the government.  Also, there are obviously plenty of crimes committed where the intention of the criminal is to use force to intimidate or coerce an individual to take, or refrain from taking, some action or to adopt or discard some particular view.  Not all, nor most, perhaps not even many, of these crimes are ever considered terrorism.

 

So therein lies the problem.  We cannot properly define "terrorism" as to include only those actions which may cause terror, to whatever degree, in the victims, because then in the cases where the victims have been randomly targeted and instantly killed in a surprise attack, they almost certainly never experience any terror at all.  We also cannot properly define "terrorism" as any forceful and harmful action taken with the intention to coerce or intimidate another to change their course of action or adopt a particular viewpoint, because that definition is so broad as to include actions which are clearly not "terrorism".  What we are left with is what we have now.  We define those acts as acts of terrorism when it serves our political and/or social goals to do so.

 

One other point, which is in response to something someone else has said.  It is not clear at all from the standpoint of the history of social and political change, as I understand it, that even actual violent extremism has always been counterproductive to the movement in whose name it has been done.  I am not advocating for any such violence, but I don't believe that anyone can say with any certainty at all that the actions of "extremists" within any political or social movement have always set the movement back.

 

I'm as peaceful a guy as anyone you're ever likely to meet.  I wouldn't hurt a fly.  But I'm not going to tar committed activists with the politically loaded label "terrorist" when all that serves to do is marginalize them, and marginalize the movement.  It is my hope that no-one ever resort to violence against other sentient beings for any reason and when people commit crimes they ought to stand and face the judgment of society.  But calling some within the movement "terrorists" isn't just some way to show our moral outrage at outrageous or even violent actions.  It is part of a campaign mounted by powerful interests to malign and ultimately crush the entire movement. I'll have no part in it.

[Sam Reynolds]

I also agree with Den that none of the SHAC prisoners committed any type of terrorism that you describe.

[Sam Reynolds]

Hi Den
I am in complete agreement with you. I support SHAC and our ARPs. It makes my blood boil that pedophiles, rapists and even murderers get lesser sentences.

hi Carolyn
The acts you describe are indeed acts of terrorism. The question we must look at is, is it right to commit any of these acts (as the IRA did) to free tourtured voiceless victims and save millions of lives?
As den pointed out, the legislation recently passed makes many "peaceful protests' pointless.

[DEN FRIEND]

Hi Carolyn

As you are aware ALF endorsed direct action is only justifiable when it does not endanger life. There have been no incidents of that type, apart from when Barbara Trenhome was imprisoned 13 years ago for setting fire to a pub, knowing that people were asleep upstairs. Her actions were quite rightly condemned by AR and she and her accomplices were given no support by the ALF supporters group. You also cite the digging up of a body as an act of 'terrorism'. It may be distasteful but it is not an act of violence and it certainly isn't an act of terrorism. Jonny is serving time in relation to this incident, but as you are probably aware, he was not charged or convicted of the offence (nor was anyone else) despite this the newspapers insist on holding him responsible. Stealing someones ashes, again insensitive perhaps but an act of terrorism? I do believe the incidents you refer to and rely on as evidence of terrorism are exaggerated. The actions were all well thought out, planned and executed, as is borne out by the fact that not a single person has been hurt or hospitalised, far less killed! You have referred to these action as acts of terrorism, have you not?

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi DENfriend,

I wasn't actually addressing the issue of direct action, I was addressing the issue of terrorism, and how and why the term should or should not be used to describe acts I believe to be terrorism.

I'm acquainted with, and friends of, people who have served prison sentences for taking part in direct action, and fully support them. I'm also friends with people who have been members of prominent direct action groups, and also support them and many of their actions. I'm not sure why you feel direct action is part of this issue, but for me, it isn't.

I'd be interested in hearing which citations you feel have been inaccurate examples of so called 'violence' from me. I cited examples of what I class as reasonable examples of terror. All accurate and factual examples.

You are also perfectly within your rights to question my so called "inappropriate and exaggerated references to 'children having their lives threatened'", but when children are forced to escape a smoke filled home and occupants are hospitilised, I consider that a life threatening situation. When children are put in a position of opening a package containing supposed blood soaked, and HIV infected razor blades, I consider that a potential life threatening situation, when children are on their property and the family car explodes, or an incendiary device is left at their front door, I consider that a life threatening situation.

You may have better examples of acts of terrorism, but I believe these acts qualify as acts of terrorism, and I don't believe that because these acts may be carried out by those who hold views in some ways similar to mine, they should be excused.

 

 

 

 

 

[DEN FRIEND]

I agree with you. But as you probably know the government has made it virtually impossible to gather evidence of animal abuse in pharma companies. It is an offence to become even a 'whistleblower'. You can face up to 2 years in prison for this 'crime'! It has also become increasingly difficult to demonstrate or draw attention to some of the worst animal abusing hell holes. Most have injunctions in place to prevent even the most peaceful protest. See SHAC website and read the draconian legislation recently passed on behalf of Novartis in Horsham. We now have to ring up Novartis (as well as the police) 24 hours in advance of our protest and give our personal details! Do we think that may put people off getting involved? Direct action has forced them into having a dialogue with us. Our comrades are in prison because of their involvement in this campaign. On release from prison Greg and Natasha have life long ASBO's and even though they are married they will not be allowed to live together. They are paying the price for their convictions and I think it absolutely disrespectful to refer to them as 'terrorists'

[Sam Reynolds]

What a well written piece.
Firstly, we have to look at the evidence that forms the foundation of this argument. The daily telegraph readership does not represent the majority of public views in the UK. It is representative of middle to upper class Britain and counts many Doctors, teachers, lawyers etc as it's base. The Sun is the best selling newspaper in the UK and although I do not read it, I know that it represents the majority of modern Britain.
Had a poll been done for The Sun, the outcome would have been very different. The last Labour government was helped into power by many torries,libdems,greens etc who switched votes when The Labour party said it Would vote to ban fox hunting.
Living through the murderous eighties, I detest the IRA. Did their tactics work? The answer is yes. The majority of the general public in the UK would never have made the decision to sit down and negotiate with murderers but the politicians did! Then the 'terrorists' in prison became 'political prisoners' and were released as part of 'the deal'. The IRA were united in their cause, focussed and determined. They did not change their tactics until they sat down at the negotiating table. They were detested by the majority but still achieved their key aims. In America it took a war to free the slaves. Peaceful protest that does not cause major financial hardship often achieves very little by way of saving non human life. The animal abuse industry is worth billions and humans are driven by greed. If you did a poll asking if a vegan lifestyle was 'extreme' the majority of the public would say it was, so there is little point in using it as a starting point.
We have to ask ourselves why self professed animal lovers will not look at pictures of vivisection or films such as glass walls. Why so many people say that they are afraid to watch 'in case it turns them off meat"? It is because the majority of human beings could not bare seeing what is being done for them! So the starting point surely is finding a way to reveal to the public what is done in their name!