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]

Considering that insects are pretty much everywhere on Earth where there is a habitable environment, I think it is sound policy that accidental deaths should be considered accidental killing and not "murder". Intentional, needless killing is murder. The end of civilization would be best for insects (and other nonhuman animals, too) if you make no distinction between intentional and unintentional killing.

[Brandon Becker]

The definition of pacifism I gave is the Gandhian version. Considering that many in the movement say they are absolutely opposed to violence (and many define "violence" as to even include destruction of inanimate objects) and often quote Gandhi at the same time, it makes sense to describe this pacifist view in the way that I did.

 

I don't regard destruction of property or physical harming others in self-defense or in defense of a defenseless innocent as "violence" at all, but as the justified use of force. Violence, in my view, is unprovoked and unjustified physical harm (or at least credible threats of harm) against the innocent.

 

Civil disobedience is not direct action unless it directly affects the problem. If it is an action that is solely about appealing to the public conscience or the state, it is not direct action. Lobbying legislators to abolish vivisection is not civil disobedience or direct action. Doing a sit-in at a legislative office to protest vivisection is civil disobedience but not direct action. Rescuing rats from a vivisection lab openly is civil disobedience but not direct action if the activists offer themselves to get arrested and the rats are returned to the lab to be tortured and murdered. Rescuing rats from a vivisection lab clandestinely is civil disobedience if a message is sent that the law enslaving rats is unjust and that vivisection should be abolished and direct action also since the activists are doing the rescue in secret to avoid getting arrested and face charges of "theft."

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Brandon. Thanks for providing the worst definition of pacifism I've ever seen! No wonder you reject it. I would reject pacifism too, if I thought this is what it means. I wonder who on earth would subscribe to that notion of pacifism (and yes I'm familiar with what wikipedia says in case you're wondering).  Over the years I've known a lot of pacifists and none of them would define pacifism in that way.

In terms of political activism, a well accepted definition of pacifism is that it agrees with the non-aggression principle, rather than the nonviolence principle, and that in terms of non-aggression it does not regard the destruction of property as violence, provided that it is only property and that it does not include damaging property where anyone may be living in or on that property e.g. those who are insects - for this reason the destruction of buildings and many kinds of vehicles (particularly through the use of arson) is unjustifiable as it almost certainly means the mass murder of many individuals. Actual self-defence is justifiable, as is defending those who are dependent upon us. In defending ourselves and others there's always the aim of using the minimum amount of force necessary. Physical acts of revenge are not considered justifiable, but economic sabotage is justifiable (and usually desireable) provided that it does not impinge upon anyone's right to life and liberty.

 

You say Direct Action and Civil Disobedience are two different things. You're half right. Civil Disobedience is one form of Direct Action. There are many other forms of course. Yes Civil Disobedience is about openly breaking the law and allowing oneself to be arrested if necessary, but also it's often about breaking the law to the point of almost being arrested, and then complying, to "stay free to fight another day" to participate in such actions more often.

 

Now I prepare myself for a deluge of links to information where you try to prove to me that I am wrong and you are right. I'm joking, I expect you're too busy for that. I know I am!

Thanks

[Tim Gier]

Hi Brandon,

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (I stole that from Roger!!) but isn't the whole point of civil disobedience to be arrested, in order to show that one is willing to be jailed to point out the unjust nature of some law?  In other words, the illegality of the action is in relation to the unjust law itself.  It would be civil disobedience to go to jail for refusing to pay one's taxes, it wouldn't be civil disobedience to blow up the IRS building to protest taxation.

 

Direct action, as you point out, is something different from either of these things.  Direct action could be a peaceful open rescue of 5 chickens, such as Igluadad Animal has done, or it could be the destruction of sheepskin factory like Walter bond has done. or it could be an organized protest against a vivisectionists laboratory like countless others have done.  

 

Is that how you see it?

[Tim Gier]

HiRoger,

 

Irealize that my comments on this thread can be construed as sayingthat well-intentioned

peopleare allowing themselves and their messages to unduly influenced bythe state, the media  and the exploiters - those Carolyn refersto as "the Baddies".  I certainly haven't meant to saythat solely because we may adopt the same terminology as they do thatwe are unduly influenced by them as far as our basic views areconcerned.  For instance, I am sure that Carolyn and I agreethat the violence committed by some in the animal advocacy movement -whatever we each may call it, whatever we each may think about it -is not at all the same kind of pervasive violence visited uponnonhumans.  I am equally sure that we are all on the same sidein this, and whatever words we choose to describe what we seehappening, no-one, at least no-one in this forum, is being co-optingby "the Baddies". 

 

Ido think, though, that there is a real danger in using terms forwhich there is little use beyond the political.  For example, Iam not very sympathetic to so-called "hate crime"legislation, which seeks to punish some crimes more severely based onthe unacceptable thoughts in the head of the criminal.  I don'tknow why we need to punish two people differently for the same kindof offense, treating one more leniently because he had the good senseor good fortune (or would it be dumb luck?) not to hurl racialepithets while committing his crime.  Labeling people as"terrorists" seems to be the same kind of thing to me. It's society's way of registering it's moral outrage at thekind of person committing an act, rather than having anything reallyto do with the unlawful nature of the act itself. As you note "It is getting to the stage when the first thing we call anything wedon't like is the T word..." and that can't be a healthydevelopment.

 

Ofcourse, you are right, and I agree with you when you note that selfproclaimed membership in the "animal movement" does notthereby grant anyone immunity against the charge that they'vecommitted an actual act of terrorism, and it is absolutely true thatsome acts are designed to instill fear and terror in those they aredirected towards (whether instilling such fear and terror itself isnecessary and sufficient to constitute "terrorism" isanother matter.)  We ought not to downplay what is happening,and I hope that by disagreeing with the use of the term that I havenot trivialized the underlying behaviors.

 

Iam not suggesting that we tally up amounts of terror.  What I amsuggesting is that the words "terrorist" and "terrorism"are not employed in order to describe actual events, or to describethe severity or seriousness of actions.  They are employed tojudge, prima facia, the very legitimacy of the ideology behind theactions.  Terrorists, by definition, are illegimate actorsworthy of nothing less than scorn.  Labelling some people asterrorists, and some acts as acts of terrorism, alleviates theneed for anyone to consider or be concerned with the grievances whichcause the actors to act in the first place.  We don't, afterall, negotiate with terrorists.

 

[Brandon Becker]

Direct action and civil disobedience are two different things. Direct action is about directly affecting the problem, legally or illegally. Civil disobedience is about openly breaking the law and taking responsibility for your actions by potentially getting arrested and facing charges. Those who participate in direct action do whatever it takes to avoid arrest while taking action so they can stay free to fight another day.

[Brandon Becker]

Pacifism is the ideology that it is always (not sometimes, not most of the time, but always!) wrong to physically harm others for any reason, from self-defense to defense of others.

 

"Pacifism is generally considered to be a morally unassailable position to take with respect to human violence. ... While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world’s thugs. It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists. ... Here we come upon a terrible facet of ethically asymmetric warfare: when your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand." - Sam Harris

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hi Roger, I agree with you. Thanks for taking the time to explain this all so clearly, and with jokes too! :)

 

Antispeciesist greetings.

[Sam Reynolds]

Tim, Roger and den, you are all right. Roger, I thought your one but last post was inspired. I think at the end of this debate, we can see that a three prong approach is the only way forward. Of course, a vegan world would be perfect but too many will be tortured before we get any where near that.
As for the Halls, I do hope that they did feel terror! A tiny bit of the terror felt by all the victims in labs. I would like to see real terror in any animal abusers eyes, I would like them to feel helpless and I hope that they will be haunted by the souls of the voiceless.
I write to severel ARPs and I can tell you for certain that they do not regret their actions only being caught and convicted because yes, they could be doing more on the outside. But everyone of them inspires their supporters to go out and be active. To us they are heroes.

[DEN FRIEND]

Do animals experience terror?

If we except they do, then we know who the real terrorists are.

Are not some of the acts carried out on non human animals extreme?

If we except they are, then we know who the extremists are.

Having a dead relative dug up would be horrible, (I think). I certainly wouldn't like my dead dog dug up, but does it fill me with terror? No. I think attitudes may have changed regarding the use of arson as a legitimate act. For the reasons as pointed out earlier. Having said that I was under the impression that setting places on fire was intended to set off sprinkler systems.