Using Single-Issue Events as a Focal Point for Vegan Education.

[Words To Inspire Debate.]

[Please click on the guest's name to transfer to the full transcript if you would like to comment there.]

Q: Can single issue campaigns (SICS) or wedge issues related to animal rights be used as a way to reach people who reject our vegan message outright? If we succeed in having others believe that supporting the circus or rodeo is wrong on ethical grounds, can we not expect some of these people to progress to veganism?

Gary Francione:

I have long been against single-issue campaigns because they encourage the false belief that some forms of exploitation are worse than others. I am not saying that you should not engage in peaceful demonstrations at a circus or whatever; I am just saying that you ought to be distributing literature and educating people about why ALL animal use is unjustifiable. Using an event like a circus as a focal point for vegan education is not necessarily a bad idea. As a general matter, however, I see single-issue campaigns as problematic, whether they are regulatory (making practice X more "humane") or whether they purport to be "bans" or prohibitions. They convey the impression that some forms of exploitation are worse than others and confuses people.

[pauline mcguigan]

Nice one Tim! I can vouch for the 'possibility' you refer to in your fourth paragraph... because that's what happened to me.  I knew no vegans, never even  had heard the word vegan.  My eureka moment came while watching a happy meat campaign and was blown away by all the double standards.  It motivated me to get on the internet to find out more about how I could live a life with more moral clarity, in line with my personal beliefs. I decided to be vegan right away, & didn't do the vegetarian thing at all. 

[Richard McMahan]

A couple of friends of mine (a lawyer and private investigator, vegans both!), take on Capitol cases (death penalty) continually. They always focus on the particulars of each case. Perhaps they should instead, on each occasion, suggest to court that killing is wrong, and let it go at that.
This might work, but many, many will die in his untested effort.

[Carolyn Bailey]

I think they could certainly make a solid case for the fact that killing is wrong, because killing is wrong. 

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we ignore what is happening every single day to millions of other individuals all over the world. I was suggesting that striking at the low hanging branches of a problem is never going to end the problem. I believe that we must strike at the root of the problem to have any chance at all of eliminating that problem. 

I agree with the original quote here, in that single issue events may be useful, if they are organised and take place with a strong vegan message. Unfortunately, I've not been witness to any events like that here in Brisbane, as yet. 


Richard McMahan said:

A couple of friends of mine (a lawyer and private investigator, vegans both!), take on Capitol cases (death penalty) continually. They always focus on the particulars of each case. Perhaps they should instead, on each occasion, suggest to court that killing is wrong, and let it go at that.
This might work, but many, many will die in his untested effort.

[Richard McMahan]

Yes, abolitionists are suggesting that what happens to individual animals, until nirvana, is nothing more than collateral damage. Yet those who are human, whose prospects are a bit brighter (people on death row, ... imagine!), ask only for a lesser detail to afford them continual life.

But we are to bully forward with abolitionism. 

It was not in my thinking that a non violent world was even in the offering, thats why I gave my example. 

 

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi Richard, as I said, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we ignore what is happening every single day to millions of individuals all over the world. We may have different opinions on which methodology is the most likely to lead to the end of exploitation sooner though. 

This is an ARZone Thought for the Day from Dr. Roger Yates that I agree with and think explains a rights based position quite well:

There is no better thing ~EVER~ than getting someone to live as a vegan for animal rights reasons because vegans fight animal persecution 24/7. They don’t eat animals or drink their juices or watch them perform or buy them as pets. If we are looking to do something NOW, what better than to talk to people about veganism for the animals’ sake? ~ Dr. Roger Yates

I can't imagine anyone saying that the lives of individuals who are suffering every second of every day are "collateral damage", I certainly don't think that to be the case. I think, as Tom Regan does, that if an injustice is absolute, we must oppose it absolutely. 

I don't think a nonviolent world is possible. I think that anyone who calls for an end to all violence may not understand what they're asking for, or fully understand the definition of "violence".