Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

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

Views: 174

Add a Comment

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

Join Animal Rights Zone

Comment by Sam Reynolds on January 8, 2011 at 9:26
Well said again Tim.
Comment by Tim Gier on January 8, 2011 at 6:40

With all due respect, this comment, by Eduardo, perhaps unwittingly oversimplifies the matter;

he said: "The point is that if society is opposed by whatever reason, then it is our duty to change

strategies to get the message to seep into society."  We know (or suspect on good evidence) that

society is opposed, overwhelmingly, to the notion of rights for animals.  We also know that

society is opposed to the notion of spceiesism as an "ism" of the same kind as racism or sexism.

We also know that we should not abandon a consistent rights-based approach to our advocacy,

and we know that speciesism is a real and pressing problem we must talk about.  So, we will not

change strategies simply because sociery is opposed to us.  On the contrary, if our claims are to

make any sense at all, they are guaranteed to be (at least initially) opposed by society, because

we are demanding change from it.  Perhaps those who commit acts of property destruction and

other "extremist" acts can be persuaded that another course is better.  We ought not to try to

persuade them so based on the fact that society is opposed to them though.  

 

The broader point is that social movements always contain an element within them that will

resort to "extremist" speech and actions.  They aren't going away, and there are those, like Steve

Best, who think that their numbers will increase in the future unless real progress towards

animal rights is soon achieved.  It is important to think about how the rest of us in the

movement will understand, respond to and interact with them.

Comment by Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ on January 8, 2011 at 4:09

Wow! Eduardo Terrer has been here and he agrees with me! I'm thrilled, as I'm sure you can imagine.

That he would would read my words and respond by saying he thinks I'm right, well, I'm greatly honoured and encouraged. I have been learning from the philosophies of Eduardo Terrer for some time now, but I have never had the opportunity to discuss these issues with him. I am delighted to find out that he agrees with me.

Earlier in this discussion Eduardo made an important point, one that I think we are all in agreement with. He said

- I oppose the use of violence in general. But I also oppose the misuse of the term terrorism.

 

When explaining the inherent problems with using violence and destruction Eduardo made a statement which includes my favourite two sentences of this whole discussion.

He said

- There are no places to put 500 pigs to be safe. And they will not stay on the mountain. -

 

Eduardo is right, of course. Thank you Eduardo.

 

Thank you to everyone for your contributions to this discussion.

 

Antispeciesist greetings

Comment by Eduardo Terrer on January 8, 2011 at 2:08
I think Kate is right.
The point is that if society is opposed by whatever reason, then it is our duty to changestrategies to get the message to seep into society.
Regardless of what we consider terrorism, but if society believes that terrorism then we must change strategy for society to change their opinion.

The use of violence, of destruction, ... has several problems, such as Kate pointed out.
On the one hand, non-humans who do not die in a slaughterhouse, will die in another.There are no places to put 500 pigs to be safe. And they will not stay on the mountain.
Individuals threaten to close business is also complicated.
Moreover, as Kate pointed out, is not the same go with the car and run over a cat on thehighway in the dark (no chance to dodge) and not knowing that there was a cat to go to the highway to run over a cat you know it's there.
Comment by Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ on January 7, 2011 at 21:55

Hello DEN FRIEND, thanks for your response.

You said - "Brownie points for you Kate!"

I don't know what you mean by this, I'm guessing it's sarcasm. If it isn't sarcasm then thanks for the acknowledgement. If it is sarcasm then - whatever. I doubt that you or anyone else would be interested to know, but I'll state it anyway, I was never a Brownie or a Girl Guide, such institutions held no appeal for me and I always knew I had more important things to do with my time.

You make the point that  - "if we were fighting for our own species would we be prepared to risk   imprisonment and that it would be the price we would gladly pay" - By this you seem to be implying that we (whoever "we" is) would be more inclined to fight for members of our own species than we would to fight for members of other species. I wonder why you think this. It's certainly not true in my case, and I expect it may also be untrue in the case of other readers. Did you notice a word I used there? I used the word "expect" which means I'm not jumping to conclusions about other peoples' opinions, I'm simply stating what would be my guess from evidence available and my interpretation of it. This may be contrasted to - "Because like everyone reading this I don't care enough" which is a speculation expressed as a statement of fact.

You also offer this statement. "Of course small animals (and even big ones) get killed inadvertently every time we go out in our cars or travel on trains or planes. I take it none of us are Jaines...."

Whether or not any of us are Jaines is a matter I consider to be irrelevant to the points we are discussing. I doubt that anyone would be interested to know but as it seems to be something you're interested in, I will state that if I were the kind of person who felt the need for religion, then Jainism would likely be the most appealing, but as I'm far too logical to believe in the supernatural I'm an atheist.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that "Of course small animals (and even big ones) get killed inadvertently every time we go out in our cars or travel on trains or planes."

I think (but I'm not sure) that by offering this you are attempting to defend the murdering of those who die as a result of intentional damage to buildings, vehicles etc. Whilst it's true that by choosing to travel be vehicular transport (hopefully only for "essential journeys") e.g. by cars, trains, planes, etc, or by walking, or indeed by choosing to consume many foods (e.g cereals, root vegetables, etc.) we do cause many to die. Do we have a choice? Sure, we could commit suicide, but that's obviously not a realistic option, so therefore we may have to accept that it's inevitable that because of our existence others do die, many others. But if we were to compare these "inevitable deaths" to a situation where someone who was driving were to deliberately aim to kill someone who crossed their path, then I assume that we would consider the driver culpable for their death, and we would not describe this death as inadvertent. Similarly, no-one needs to destroy buildings or vehicles, so I think it would be disingenous to imply that deaths occurring as a direct consequence of such actions could be reasonably considered as inadvertent.

It's clear to me that we must take responsibility for our actions, and continually reassess our behaviour and lifestyles in the hope of finding ways in which we can decrease our personal death toll.

Thank you.

 

Antispeciesist greetings

Comment by Sam Reynolds on January 7, 2011 at 21:52
Sorry Kate, don't know why I put Carolyn???
Comment by Sam Reynolds on January 7, 2011 at 21:42
Ok, let's not fight with each other. I am a Jew and I also compare the abuse of animals to the camps of the second world war and all those who knew, just as guilty. I would support any means of freeing both groups of tortured souls. But could I do that myself, at this moment in my life? What would happen to my 3 young children and 10 animals that need me? I can not go to prison but I can support by any means those that do. I do care enough but as all groups and militia have shown in the past, there needs to be a common goal and strength in numbers. There are too many talking heads in AR. The phrase 'action speaks louder than words' has been around a long time for good reason!
Thank you Carolyn for starting such an interesting debate. It's really made me think!
Comment by DEN FRIEND on January 7, 2011 at 19:35
Brownie points for you Kate! Yes, of course the possibility of getting locked up is a deterrent. But the point I'm making is that if we were fighting for our own species would we be prepared to risk   imprisonment and that it would be the price we would gladly pay. Of course small animals (and even big ones) get killed inadvertently every time we go out in our cars or travel on trains or planes. I take it none of us are Jaines....Do you know everyone who reads what's written on here? If you don't, then I would ask you to refrain from making assumptions!
Comment by Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ on January 7, 2011 at 14:44

Hello DEN FRIEND. You have stated

- I know where the slaughter houses are, I could physically try and stop the transporters from entering the slaughter house, I could smash them up, but I don't, why not? Because like everyone reading this I don't care enough... -

You are incorrect. I certainly do care enough, and I expect that everyone who's reading this also cares enough. There are various reasons why someone may be be unwilling to smash up slaughter houses and/or the transporters that bring the tragic victims to their imminent murders. For me, the two most obvious reasons are that smashing up any building or transportation vehicle almost certainly involves killing many small animals who inhabit the fabric of the building or vehicle. The other reason is that it's more difficult to campaign on behalf of those who are being exploited and murdered if we are having to campaign from inside a prison. By the way, I do know what it feels like to be charged with criminal damage, and face a possible ten years in prison for it. This experience forced me to think hard about which actions I would choose to be involved in in future. (Incidentally, the criminal damage charges were dropped because the prosecution could not prove that any damage had actually occured).

 

I expect your last comment has some cathartic value for you, but I ask that you please try to refrain from making assumptions about the motivations of readers.

Thank you.

 

Thank you to everyone who has contibuted to this useful and meaningful discussion.

 

Antispeciesist greetings

Comment by DEN FRIEND on January 7, 2011 at 9:59
Nath, I think it is very important that we debate the appropriateness of using the term terrorist to describe direct action carried out by (or attributed to) animal rights activists. We are not actually members of anything, we are individuals. We may have different ways of going about things but we do all agree that we care about animals. Maybe most of us don't care enough, maybe if it was our own species we were fighting for we wouldn't be arguing about semantics, we would be fighting harder for their liberation. I am not talking about writing letters or signing petitions, I'm talking about not worrying what anybody thought about you, but just smashing down the walls that imprison our brothers and sisters. I sometimes wonder what I would have done if I had been around in Nazi Germany when Jews were being transported to concentration camps. Would I have stood by and done nothing, would I have written a letter to the camp commander asking him to be nice to his prisoners or would I have been prepared to ambush the guards, maybe even kill them and set the Jews free? I would like to think that I would have done something. But would I? I know where the slaughter houses are, I could physically try and stop the transporters from entering the slaughter house, I could smash them up, but I don't, why not? Because like everyone reading this I don't care enough...

About

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…

© 2024   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Google+