Dear Colleagues:

I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them. As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.

On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any actual slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post.

The video shows two cows waiting in a chute to be led into the abattoir. An employee comes out and uses an electric prod to get the first cow to enter the abattoir. The second cow remains behind the door that has closed. She is clearly terrified. She knows that she is in trouble and this is not simply a matter of “instinct” (I do not even know what that means.) She is desperately looking for a way to get out of the chute. She may not have the same sorts of thoughts that beings who, like us, use symbolic communication, but it is clear that she has some equivalent sort of cognition. To say that she does not have a sense of having a life is beyond absurdity.

I find this video to be profoundly tragic on many levels. Watch it and then ask yourself whether animal organizations should be investing their time and your resources in trying to design “better” slaughterhouses or promoting “happy” meat, or whether we should all commit ourselves to veganism and to clear, unequivocal, nonviolent vegan education.

The video is apparently from a French slaughterhouse. But it does not really matter. All slaughterhouses are places of hell and unspeakable violence against the vulnerable. Never believe that such a place can ever be described as “humane” except by someone who is very deeply confused about fundamental issues of morality.

Someone who saw this video wrote to me and said the following:

I am a vegetarian but have found it difficult to transition to veganism. My two weaknesses: ice cream and good Cheshire cheese. I watched this video. I looked into her eyes and I answered the question that you asked on your video page: “Is there anything that you want to eat that badly?” The answer was clear to me in a way it never was before. I am now a vegan. I also recognised that all of the suffering and death that is going on is not because of what “they” are doing but because of what “we” demand. You are right to say that “the people who are ultimately responsible are not those who own and operate the slaughterhouses; those who consume meat and animal products, who create the demand, bear the ultimate moral responsibility.”

Go vegan. Educate others in creative, nonviolent ways about veganism.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

As you know, I do not believe that welfare reforms provide significant benefits for nonhuman animals even when these reforms are implemented. But they often are not even implemented. That is, there are campaigns and fundraising efforts and declarations of “victory” (accompanied by parties complete with celebrities) but the supposed reforms often never even come about.

A good example of this phenomenon is found in the announcement on June 24, 2009 that Smithfield Foods will delay the ten-year phase-out of gestation crates for sows for financial reasons. Although alternatives to gestation crates have been demonstrated by agricultural economists to increase production efficiency in the long term, the short-term capital costs of converting from the crate system are apparently causing Smithfield to delay the ten-year phase out plan.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dear Colleagues:

In much of my writing, I have argued that the promotion of the “happy meat” approach has led not only to making the public more comfortable about consuming animal products but it has resulted in the creation of a disturbing partnership between animal advocates and institutionalized exploiters. This topic is one of the many issues debated by me and Professor Robert Garner, who defends the new welfarist or “protectionist” (as he prefers to call it) position in our book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, forthcoming from Columbia University Press this fall.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dear Colleagues:

Two recent articles from Gourmet Magazine show us the clear direction in which the “happy meat” movement (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8) being promoted by virtually all of the large animal welfare organizations is taking us.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dear Colleagues:

The Associated Press has reported the following story:

(AP) A 23-year-old woman who got a friend to kill her Jack Russell terrier was charged with skinning the puppy to make a belt out of its hide.

Krystal Lynn Lewis and Austin Michael Mullins, 26, were being held Friday in the Muskogee County jail on $25,000 bail each. They were charged with one felony count of cruelty to animals.

“We’re talking about a 6- or 7-week-old defenseless puppy,” said sheriff’s deputy George Roberson. “That’s pretty heinous and sadistic.”

A Muskogee County judge ordered a mental competency hearing for Lewis.

Lewis wanted the puppy, named Poplin, killed because it was a gift from a female ex-lover with whom she doesn’t get along, said Muskogee County sheriff’s deputy George Roberson.

Roberson said Mullins shot the terrier 10 times with a .22-caliber pistol. Lewis skinned the animal at her apartment and nailed the hide to a board.

It was obviously wrong to kill the dog to make a belt (or for any other purpose). But what about the cows and other nonhumans who provide the belts or shoes that almost everyone wears?

In the case of the dog, we charge a felony and set bail at $25,000. In the case of the cow, we don’t give the matter a second thought. Why don’t we see both as “heinous and sadistic”?

This is yet another example of the confused and deluded way that we think about animals. We need to educate others to get them to see that they should have the same reaction in the case of the cow as they do to that of the dog.

There is no rational explanation or moral justification for a different reaction.

Gary L. Francione
© 2009 Gary L. Francione