Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

Transcript of Prof. Steve Garlick's ARZone Live Guest Chat

Transcript of Prof. Steve Garlick’s ARZone Guest Chat

5 November 2011

6pm US Eastern Time

10pm UK Time

6 November 2011

8am Australian Eastern Standard Time

 

 

Carolyn Bailey:

ARZone would like to welcome Professor Steve Garlick as today’s Live Chat Guest.

 

Professor Steve Garlick is the Founding President of The Animal Justice Party in Australia.

 

The Animal Justice Party has been formed as a response to growing public concern about the neglect of animals and animal protection issues by political parties.

 

The Animal Justice Party seeks a restoration of the balance between the human, natural and animal worlds which acknowledges the interconnectedness and inter-dependence of these worlds, and respects the wellbeing of other animals alongside that of humans, societies, economies and environments.

 

Steve has professorial positions at two Australian universities and is an international expert in spatial economics and university/community engagement.

 

He is an economist and applied ethicist, specialising in wildlife welfare and sits on a number of international and national boards. He also has an extensive publication record.

 

In 2009, with wife Rosemary, Steve was internationally recognised with the World Shining Compassion Award for the work he does rehabilitating severely injured wildlife.  With Rosemary, Steve runs a wildlife recovery and research centre for macropods and wombats. 

 

Would you please join with me in saying hello and welcoming Steve to ARZone?

 

Welcome, Steve!

 

Sadia:

Welcome Professor Garlick! Much appreciative of your presence here today. Thank you.

 

Sky:

Hello!

 

Jason Ward:

Hello and welcome Steve!!!

 

Sharni Buckley:

Hi Prof. Garlick!

 

Adrienne Terrell:

Hi

 

Steve Garlick:

Thanks for that intro carolyn

 

Debbie:

Welcome

 

Tim Gier:

HI Steve!

 

Roger Yates:

Welcome to ARZone!

 

Brooke Cameron:

Hello, and welcome, Steve!

 

Fifi Leigh:

hi

 

Will:

hey

 

Jesse Newman:

Hello!

 

Tui Allen:

so excited to "meet" you

 

Steve Garlick:

A new experience for me

 

Mangus O’Shales:

hi there

 

Billy Lovci:

Hi Prof. Garlick

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Professor Garlick will be responding to his pre-registered questins first and then we'll open the chat up for all members to address him

 

Steve Garlick:

Good morning or evening or afternoon to all of you wherever you are

 

Carolyn Bailey:

I'd like to ask Sky to begin by asking Steve his first question. Thanks, Sky!

 

Elaine Avery:

Do you know if hair dyes manufacturers use animals to test the products?

 

Sky:

The Animal Justice Party was registered in May this year. What has been the reaction to the party from both the animal advocacy community and from the political community?

 

Steve Garlick:

Thank you Sky for this question.  In the AJP we started with an idea, some passion and $300 about 18 months ago.

 

Its still very early days and we are intentionally progressing slowly, nevertheless there has been reaction to AJP registration – some predictable and some perhaps a little surprising, Most predictable has been on the political side.

 

On the day the AJP received its registration from the Australian Electoral Commission the AJP website received a huge number of hits. Clearly there are AEC alert watchers out there. The Greens have been watching us closely and have been taking more interest in animal well-being recently than they have done in the past 30 years. We would mark this down as a success indicator for AJP.

 

While some Greens representatives have said its about time someone challenged the Greens on animal welfare, others can’t understand why there is a need for another party to advocate politically for animals. There is clearly a wide spectrum of value systems and capacity across animal advocacy organisations.

 

We have had good support for example from organisations like the World League for Protection of Animals and we have had active interest from a range of species-specific groups asking us to help with their own particular objectives. Least interested and helpful have been the larger organisations like the RSPCA and Animals Australia, the latter being somewhat surprising at least to me.

 

Sky:

Can I ask a follow-up please, Carolyn?

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Sure Sky, please go ahead.

 

Sky:

Thanks for the answer, Prof. Steve. This might seem a big question. I am a fan of the ARZ podcasts and Ronnie Lee is a supporter of the Green Party in the UK and yet Robert Garner said that "animal groups" don't do well in politics...  is politics a worthwhile arena for animal advocates to be involved in?

 

Steve Garlick:

OK.  I guess we will have to see.  Each country is different but I am encouraged by what th Dutch have achieved.  We are just at the formative stage and it will be a long and bloody road I am sure.

 

Jason Ward:

Thanks Prof Garlick - next up is a question from Barbara DeGrande - but since she couldn't make it today - Tim Gier will be asking it on her behalf - please go ahead when you're ready Tim.

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks Jason. Here's Barbara's question: "Both you and your wife run a self–funded wildlife recovery and research centre for severely injured wildlife...." How did that come about? Also, do you have advice on how people without any training should deal with any injured wildlife they might encounter?

 

Steve Garlick:

Thanks Tim and Barbara. My wife and I have been helping severely injured wildlife now for around 13 years.  In that time we have directly helped around 700 animals, mostly macropods and wombats, get a second chance at life back in the wild.

 

In some respects its a hobby that has engulfed us with so much wildlife suffering from human disregard. They have come to us with broken limbs, head injuries, severe wounds and critical illnesses. 

 

Every single day we see the worst of what human cruelty and disregard does to wildlife in this country. Every day we pick up the pieces of cruelty and disregard for wildlife in this cursed land and still try to remain passionate and positive. It’s very depressing at times, but also very fulfilling.

 

I suppose the best advice I can give to those wanting to help injured wildlife is to do some research about where the best and most ethical expertise is because not all wildlife rehabilitation organisations are either ethical or well trained. In many organisations the actions toward injured wildlife do not equate with their rhetoric.  When you have done your research you will have a place you can take an injured animal to and be confident it will get good attention.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! Roger Yates would like to ask the next question. Thanks, Roger.

 

Roger Yates:

Hi. I am a little unclear about your party’s aims in the sense of, are you standing for election, or trying to influence the mainstream political system as a lobby group? In your charter you describe other animals as experiencing subjects-of-a-life (Regan) and yet I do not see you suggesting that nonhuman animals are rightholders, or that what we do to them are rights violations. Your rhetoric is animal welfare. Can you speak to these points, please - I wonder if you are being “tactical” here?

 

Steve Garlick:

Thanks Roger. Our Constitution is quite clear that our first objective is to stand candidates at elections. We are a political party rather than a lobby group and seek to improve the well-being of animals through the political process.

 

To be clear on your second point, we view animals as individuals that have lives of capability, emotion and personality just as humans do and our goal is to represent the interests of these animals in realising these capabilities in a political environment where all parties have previously ignored them in their decision making. Much of the harm done to animals results from the action and inaction of governments.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks. Next up is Carolyn Bailey...

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Roger. Hi Steve! Given how things actually are today with respect to the legal status of other animals, do you think that any political party can do anything other than compromise on the core issues of animal rights in order to make political gains?

 

Steve Garlick:

Thanks Carolyn. I think the Dutch Party for the Animals have shown that change favouring animals can occur through the political process, but it won’t happen quickly. In this county at the moment we have the opportunity with minority government and wildly swinging electorates to bargain with other parties for legislative change and new policies that favour animal well-being in exchange for distributing voting preferences. And if we can get a candidate elected at the nest Federal Election even better.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve. May I ask a follow-up, please?

 

Steve Garlick:

Certainly

 

Carolyn Bailey:

I’m not familiar with the Dutch Party for Animals, Steve. Could you explain what gains they have made in regard to according other animals some of the rights they deserve?

 

Steve Garlick:

The Party for the Animals I believe now have two representatives in their central parliament and are highly represented in provincial government. One recent achievement was to oppose the rights of Muslims to kill live animals in the name of halal. Such killing is now outlawed in the Netherlands thanks to the Party for the Animals.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve.

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks Steve, Sharni Buckley has the next question. When you're ready Sharni...

 

Sharni Buckley:

Hi Steve! In your work with the AJP, are you networking or aligning with other animal advocacy organisations in Australia. If so, what is your objective in doing so? Also, does the AJP support any local grassroots groups and if so, how? Thank you!

 

Steve Garlick:

Strategically, I want AJP to have its strongest connection to the thousands of individual grass roots animal lovers rather than to a few animal advocacy organisations that have their own politics.  So I see an organisation with a strong centre and a strong base connected via social media. I see social media being the medium for this grass roots connectivity as it is something many ordinary folk are now comfortable with using. Of course we will work with animal advocacy organisations where values equate with our own principles.

 

Sharni Buckley:

I agree with that, Steve. I think the big orgs, particular the big two in Australia, can only make the road a more difficult one for a party that actually stands for justice, and not single issue welfare campaigns. Thank you.

 

Steve Garlick:

Yes, they have their own politics and it just becomes unwieldly.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! Tim Gier would like to ask the next question now. Thanks, Tim.

 

Tim Gier:

Sociologist David Nibert has developed a theory of “Entanglement” which explains the animal exploitation is inextricably interconnected with the dominant patriarchal corporatist-capitalism that operates within most Westernized cultures. He contends that we won’t be able to effectively deal with human-nonhuman relations until we replace that capitalist paradigm with a more egalitarian socialism. Are you familiar with this thesis and would please comment on it?

 

Steve Garlick:

Thanks Tim. Allow me the luxury of answering your question in the language of an economist as I am not familiar with Nibert’s sociology work. 

 

I believe the concepts are similar. There is no doubt that as a society we have all been shoehorned into a neoliberal culture that focuses on the self at the expense of the ‘other’, and focuses on human exceptionalism at the expense of the capabilities of non-human animals. As humans are, generally (not present company of course), a narcissistic, self-indulgent and somewhat cruel species, what chance the realisation of non-human animal capabilities?

 

Also, what chance learning if we are not prepared to have a relational ethic towards animals, but rather are happy for the divide to become even wider and more entrenched?

 

However, I am not sure I totally agree with the notion that the lives of animals will only improve once the neoliberal paradigm is no more because animals actually fare no better in eastern society or in developing economies where neoliberal values are not yet fully entrenched. 

 

I feel any progress on the well-being of animals will depend on learning from them and in respecting their capability and individuality via the formal and informal education process and as the field of neuroscience tells us this learning has to begin at very young ages and in contextual settings to ensure fundamental long lasting results are achieved.

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks Steve, may I ask a quick follow-up?

 

Steve Garlick:

Yes

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks, I think Nibert’s point is that capitalism is an inherently exploitative system, in that it extracts value from the work of many (and at their expense) for the benefit of a few. Do you agree with that view?

 

Steve Garlick:

I agree with that, but I would go much further.  We often hear these days about knowledge and creativity. Academics are good at that. But what kind of knowledge and what kind of creativity. Much of the global environmental problems we have today come from the decisions and actions of 'educated' humans. Until we have a learning process that values our relations with the other we will not progress on the topic of animals either.

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks Steve, I agree with what you've said about no longer looking at non-humans as "others," and that it's going to be a long haul.

 

Steve Garlick:

Indeed.

 

Tim Gier:

Next up is Brooke Cameron.... please go ahead Brooke.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks Tim! Thanks for giving us your time today, Prof. Garlick! The AJP supports the campaign being run by Animals Australia and the RSPCA to ban the live export of cows from Australia to Indonesia, which calls for these cows to be slaughtered in Australia. Could you please explain why the AJP is calling for the continued slaughter of other animals, and why you have aligned yourself with organisations who advocate for the continuation and regulation of animal exploitation?

 

Steve Garlick:

I expected a question along these lines Brooke.

 

Brooke Cameron:

:-)

 

Steve Garlick:

I don’t believe it’s a case that the AJP has aligned itself with any other organisation on the export of live cattle issue. I have already had a bit to say on this forum about the two main organisations that have fronted this issue.

 

This issue was one of the first policy papers we compiled and we argued for a complete and immediate ban on live exports on two main grounds. First, the whole process from feedlot to abattoir was cruel and should cease immediately. Second, the economics do not stand up compared to processing chilled meat domestically.

 

It’s not the case that we actually support the killing of animals for meat domestically, you only have to read our policy paper on human diet to appreciate that. However, in economic terms we simply put forward the case that exporting live animals for slaughter was an inferior option that generated a lower national return compared to domestic processing.

 

The animal welfare argument was lost in a spurious argument about economics (again), but in this case not even the economics stands up. You might remember in the Hawke-Keating years when there was an active policy program of reducing protection on textiles, clothing, footwear, steel and motor vehicles. Tens of thousands of jobs were impacted on, but these folk were told they had to retrain in other areas. Labour market assistance was given and many did find other occupations. The livestock producers in the live export industry however have been treated very differently. There is something very inequitous in all of this and it comes back to the question asked earlier by Tim.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks, Prof. Garlick. May I ask a follow-up question, please?

 

Steve Garlick:

Yes

 

Brooke Cameron:

In your speech at the National Day of Protest in June this year, you made some excellent points, and made it clear that other animals are individuals who we should respect for who they are. You also spoke of the way other animals are treated in Australia during the live export process, and on the ships. It was very refreshing to hear someone speak of these issues.

 

Could you please explain what an acceptable alternative to the live export of cows from Australia to Indonesia would be for the AJP? And, is that what you are actively campaigning for?

 

Steve Garlick:

I suppose unless you are talking about revolution (Egypt, Libya, etc) resulting from years and years of injustice, the only way you will bring about change is by a stepwise process so that people will come with you on the journey.

 

For the AJP our end point is that animals are not used as a source of food for humans when there are so many (better) alternatives.

 

Getting to this point however must start with various improvements to the rotten practice we have at the moment. Banning live exports would have been a good first step. The opposition to this first step tells us how difficult the process toward a meat free diet will be.

 

A second step would be to ban halal as the Dutch have now done.

 

A third step would be a complete evaluation of animal welfare in the Australian abattoir system.  This would highlight so many areas where improvement can be made. Of course the economics argument will raise its ugly head again (these days I hesitate to call myself as one of this profession), but it’s easy to punch holes in the superficial nature of these arguments here.

 

So, I see a good third step being a very thorough analysis of this domestic abattoir situation and to demonstrate that, actually, animal welfare and a meat free diet need not have negative economic impact.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks, Prof. Garlick. I appreciate that you're willing to note that Australian abattoirs can be every bit as brutal as those in other countries, and more importantly, other animals still leave those abattoirs as pieces of meat, regardless of the manner in which they're slaughtered.

 

Do you think it's important to speak about veganism being something that's necessary in order for justice for these other animals to be achieved? Or do you think that speaking about veganism turns people away?

 

Steve Garlick:

Thanks Brooke. When we first started talking about a political party for animals in this country 18 months ago some felt it should only be open to vegans and we had an internal debate about it. 

 

While we recognised the importance of a vegan diet as an end point we also recognised that for a political party (vis a vis an advocacy group) numbers are important and that it would be better to approach the topic in the public arena with a whole range of evidence that increased awareness that a non-meat diet was more beneficial to our health and economy as well as having clear moral and ethical concerns.

 

I think about the 'quit smoking' campaign and the 'anti-litter' campaign and how long they have been going to achieve success.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks, Prof. Garlick, for your detailed response. I appreciate it!

 

Steve Garlick:

Certainly the environment as I know only too well in my role in advocating for kangaroos and other wildlife.

 

Jason Ward:

Thanks Steve - next with a question is Tim Gier - Please go ahead Tim.

 

Tim Gier:

In ARZone’s most recent podcast, political theorist Prof. Robert Garner suggested that it is possible that the existence of a political party focused on animal issues might have the effect of allowing those politicians in power to completely ignore animal issues. His thought is that those politicians, who would be part of the mainstream structure, would be able to say that since there was a party dedicated to animal issues, that there would be no need for them to address them. What do you think?

 

Steve Garlick:

Thanks Tim. First, I am not sure that the history of animal welfare in this country would support Garner’s argument – unless of course he is suggesting that animal welfare in this country will become worse than it already is once an AJP becomes established. I don't think the experience of the Netherlands would support this.

 

Second, politics is about trading numbers and the importance of the marginal vote for the party in power.  We will have no hesitation in trading preferences to get better outcomes for animals.

Tim Gier:

Thanks Steve. I think Garner isn't suggesting that animal welfare would be worse as a result of an effort such as yours, only that mainstream politicians will use any chance they can get to ignore the animal question. Next up is Jesse Newman. Please go ahead Jesse.

 

Steve Garlick:

Sorry if I missed your point Tim. Yes, I agree they will and that is the very reason we need a party to pick them up in ways that hurt, ie at the ballot box - because they won't listen to anything else! Yes, this raises the eternal question of the law and justice with respect to animals and I must say I am  attracted to the work of Martha Nussbaum in this area. I will tell you a personal story on this topic if we have the time. Carolyn?

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Sure, Steve, please do!

 

Steve Garlick:

Ok I will keep it short. About three years ago we were protesting in Canberra about a plan by the federal and Territory governments to kill 514 kangaroos enclosed behind a high fence. Lots of police (out numbering protestors actually). 

 

All of the Indigenous folk agreed to cross into the property because they argued it was their land and the kangaroo was their sacred totem. They looked around to see who else among the protestors would come with them. I was interstate at the time, but my wife (a veteran of protests going back to the Franklin River) decided she would cross on to the property. 

 

No other white person went over. Of course she was charged not just with trespass but with ignoring a police order. But she did it because she knew the law was wrong and morally could not let injustice prevail.

 

Of course it cost us lots of money, but it did have impact and embarrassed the perpetrators to this day. So, I say if you believe as a knowledgeable, moral and ethical person that there is injustice in the law then you need to speak up.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks for that story, Steve. I think it's important to stand up for what we believe in and I think that drawing attention to an injustice can be an excellent way to educate others about what is happening.

 

Jesse Newman:

Thank you Steve, I think you are right.

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks Steve, Carolyn has the next question for you - Carolyn???

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Tim! The AJP speaks about achieving justice for other animals.  Do you promote veganism as a way to achieving that end. If not how do you define “justice.”

 

Steve Garlick:

In our policy paper on human diet we do promote veganism as an ultimate goal in achieving better outcomes for non-human animals, but we are realistic enough to know that with awareness raising it will take some time to encourage greater numbers in this direction.


Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! Tim Gier would like to ask the last of our pre-registered questions for today now. If there are any further questions for Steve, please feel free to message myself, Tim Gier or Jason Ward, with your intent.

 

Tim Gier:

It is often said that politicians are consummate followers rather than the leaders we like to think of them as. That is to say, politicians will not enact controversial legislative changes ahead of public opinion, but will instead always be conservative and trail behind the will of the people. Do you think that’s true, and if so, then how can the AJP be effective?

 

Steve Garlick:

I mostly agree with this assessment of politicians Tim, but there have been exceptions where they have gone ahead of public opinion such as for example the introduction of a GST by John Howard, but mostly I suspect such 'leadership' results from bloodymindedness rather than passion underpinned by ethical and moral values.

 

Tim Gier:

What is the GST?

 

Steve Garlick:

I actually think this is the niche for the AJP. Emotion seems to have gone out of politics - even the Greens have become dull. Animals touch our emotional side as the recent TV programme on live cattle exports demonstrated. Sorry Tim...a Goods and Services Tax

 

Tim Gier:

:-)

 

Steve Garlick:

No other political party has a central thesis that exudes emotion in the same way that animals do and we need to highlight the optics of animal injustice.

 

Tim Gier:

Thanks again Steve!

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks again, Steve. To begin the open session, I'd like to ask Maynard Clark to ask his question now. When you're ready, Maynard.

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you, Prof. Garlick, for your work organizing in Australia. Australia is a big place - my first term paper was on Australia - in the 7th grade. (got an A)  But I digress! :-) 

 

On the question of international 'framework conventions' for recognition of the personhood of nonhuman persons. Marianne Thieme has on their site a short course on how to establish a party advocating for animals. There are now about 196 nations on planet Earth, I believe. Wikipedia lists 11 'animal advocacy parties' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_advocacy_parties.

 

We DO need global 'framework conventions' and ought to work in that direction. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1535892

 

The adoption of framework conventions is a relatively recent phenomenon in international law and has mainly been employed in the field of international environmental law. Why not have a global movement, and call your party the Animal Justice Party of Australia? And how do you see your movement going to the United Nations? Thank you.

 

Steve Garlick:

Lots of good stuff here Maynard. I have actually thought about having an international thrust around this. Actually, we are called the Animal Justice Party of Australia.

Maynard S. Clark:
The Green Party is international.  So are religious movements.

 

Steve Garlick:

I do a fair bit of overseas travel with my work (when I get to it) and had intended consulting with various organisations (national and international) with this view in mind.

 

Just last month I was at the European Commission speaking and had tried to have discussions with the animal welfare folk there.

 

I suppose at the moment I have my work cut out trying to make AJP work (starting a political party from nothing is not easy), but every time I am overseas I do intend to pursue the international agenda which you have raised.

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you very much, Steve.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve, and Maynard! Tui Allen would like to ask a question now. Thanks, Tui.

 

Tui Allen:

In Taiji Japan they are driving in a pod of dolphins for slaughter now as we speak. Most Japanese know nothing of this. It is a big govt cover up. Is there a role for politics (outside Japan) to stop this?

Dolphins are mostly killed to stop them eating fish which “belong” to Japanese fishermen, but money comes from selling a few to Seaworld and the like.

 

Steve Garlick:

The comparison with kangaroos in this country is clear where so-called farmers complain that they are eating their pastures. Similarly, most ordinary folk don't know the awful things that governments get away with using taxpayers money to run their spin programs.

 

I think the discussion we had just now with Maynard (ie the international perspective) offers possibilities. There needs to be international embarrassment to overcome local secrecy.

 

Tui Allen:

Good idea. Let them lose face. Thank-you.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks again, Steve. Tina has another question now which will be asked by Jason Ward. Thanks, Jay!

 

Jason Ward:

Thanks Carolyn - Hi Steve - Tina's question:

do u accept that u cant change a rotten system by working within it,using a structure an policies which mirror that system ? in a world where billions of animals are dying every day for every form of human use, any concession to the mainstream, so what has politics go to offer the REAL AR movement ?? talkin about welfare just gives them more room to dodge issues an make excuses. We will get nowher working with a system which is BUILT on animal slavery. So what is your vision for the future?

 

Steve Garlick:

I always had two strategies in mind and we have talked about them a little today. The first was there needs to be an international thrust because while some governments like to tell outsiders to bugger off, the general population don't like to be embarrassed globally.  We see this all the time in international events. 

 

The treatment of asylum seekers in this country is a case in point.

 

The second strategy was to beat these established parties at their own game by targeting those marginal electorates where every vote counts and force them to make improvements to animal welfare in their policies before handing over preference votes.  We can see the effect of this in the current minority government situation in this country. A small number of independents have pretty well got everything they wanted.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Steve! This concludes Steve's ARZone chat for today, and I'd like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for being so very generous with your time, and replying to some excellent questions with great insight. I found this to be a very educational and interesting chat!

 

Jason Ward:

Thanks Steve for coming today. :-)

 

Sharni Buckley:

Thanks, Steve. This has been great!

 

Barbara DeGrande:

Thanks for your time, Steve!

 

Tui Allen:

Thunderflukes the Whale will come next time. Thanks.

 

Brooke Cameron:

Thanks Prof. Garlick. I really enjoyed this!

 

Steve Garlick:

I have enjoyed it and thank you all for making it happen. If I can be of further help for animals please let me know.

 

Carolyn Bailey:

We really do appreciate it, thanks, Steve!

 

Sadia:

Many a thanks indeed professor. Garlick!

 

Maynard S. Clark:

Thank you so much, Professor Garlick.

 

Lisa Viger:

thanks for the chat!

 

Liddy:

If anyone is still here they might want to check out the Humane Party. A new Political Party in the US, founded 2009, we plan to run a candidate for office in 2016.   http://www.humaneparty.net/

 

Tim Gier:

Thank you!!

 

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Liddy! :-)

 

 

 

ARZone exists to promote rational discussion about our relations with other animals and about issues within the animal advocacy movement. Please continue the debate after “chats” by starting a forum discussion or making a point under a transcript.

 

 

 

Views: 410

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!

Join Animal Rights Zone

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes

or

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:

Twitter

Google+

Pinterest

A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.arzone.ning.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.arzone.ning.com.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.

Members

Events

Badge

Loading…

© 2017   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Google+