Proposition 2

Dear Colleagues:

About.com has published a pro/con on California’s Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, known as “Proposition 2.”

I oppose Proposition 2. The Humane Society of the United States is its primary supporter and the About.com piece defending Proposition 2 is written by Paul Shapiro, Senior Director, HSUS Factory Farming Campaign. The essays are brief in that we were limited to 500 words each.

As those of you who listened to the interview I did on Go Vegan Radio (July 26) know, I suggested to host Bob Linden that he invite HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle to debate the HSUS campaign in favor of Proposition 2 and other welfarist campaigns promoted by HSUS. Bob has informed me that he invited Wayne but that Wayne declined. I am sorry about that as I think that such exchanges are an excellent way for animal advocates to learn about these issues.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

A Debate on “Pet” Ownership

Dear Colleagues:

In light of the significant response to the debate on eating meat and animal products, Opposing Views decided to have another debate on animal ethics and focused on the institution of “pets.”

I am arguing against the perpetuation of “pet” ownership; the Humane Society of the United States is arguing in favor of it.

I hope that you will stop by, read the entries, and offer your comments.

I am delighted that Opposing Views is taking an interest in animal ethics.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

A “Monumental” Decision?

Animal welfare advocates are terribly excited over a recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court. According to a press release from The Humane Society of the United States and Farm Sanctuary, two of the petitioners in the case:

The New Jersey Supreme Court today struck down the New Jersey Department of Agriculture’s regulations exempting all routine husbandry practices as “humane” and ordered the agency to readdress many of the state-mandated standards for the treatment of farm animals.

In this monumental case, the Court ruled that factory farming practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used, setting a legal precedent for further actions to end the most egregious abuses on factory farms throughout the U.S. The Court also rejected the practice of tail-docking cattle, and the manner in which the NJDA had provided for farm animals to be mutilated without anesthesia.

“This is a major victory for farm animals in New Jersey, and will pave the way for better protections of farm animals nationwide,” said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. “Setting a legal precedent in a unanimous vote that clarifies that commonly used practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used will build on our momentum in challenging the cruel status quo on factory farms.”

In addition to striking down the agency’s sweeping exemption for “routine husbandry practices,” the Court further held that tail docking could not be considered humane, and the manner in which mutilations without anesthesia including castration, de-beaking and de-toeing could not be considered humane without some specific requirements to prevent pain and suffering. The Court made clear that the decision to permit these practices as long as they are done by a “knowledgeable person” and in a way to “minimize pain” could not “pass muster.”

“This decision will protect thousands of animals in New Jersey, and also calls into question some of the worst factory farm abuses practiced throughout the country,” said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of animal protection litigation for The Humane Society of the United States. “All animals deserve humane treatment, including animals raised for food.”

Unfortunately, this excitement is not warranted. When one reads the actual opinion, one gets a very different picture.

Read more

Italian and Polish Translations of Abolitionist Pamphlet

Dear Colleagues:

The Italian and Polish versions of the pamphlet are now available. They are provided in U.S. Letter and A4 formats.

You can download the Italian version here: Letter | A4

You can download the Polish version here: Letter | A4

Thanks to Marina Berati for the Italian translation and to Krzysztof Forkasiewicz for the Polish translation.

And still more languages coming soon!

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

French Translation of Pamphlet Available

Dear Colleagues:

The French version of the pamphlet is now available. It is provided in U.S. Letter and A4 formats.

You can download the French version here: Letter | A4

Thanks to Maryline Chauvet, Valéry Giroux, and Marc Vincent for doing this translation.

Please also remember that we have a complete mirror site in French that was translated by Valéry Giroux.

We are gratified by the many, many messages we are getting from all over the world from advocates who find the pamphlet to be of assistance in their advocacy.

More languages are coming soon.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Spanish and Portuguese Versions of Pamphlet Now Available

Dear Colleagues:

We now have available Spanish and Portuguese versions of our pamphlet on the fundamentals of the abolitionist approach to animal rights.

Both versions are provided in U.S. Letter and A4 formats.

You can download the Spanish version here: Letter | A4

You can download the Portuguese version here: Letter | A4

Thanks to Dra. Ana María Aboglio for doing the Spanish translation and to Regina Rheda for doing the Portuguese translation. And ongoing thanks to Randy Sandberg and Barna Mink for their web design work.

Please also remember that our video presentations, Theory of Animal Rights, Animals as Property, Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare, and Animal Law, are all available in Spanish and Portuguese (as well as in French and German).

Stay tuned. More translations are coming. And our podcast is about to be born….

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

German Version of Pamphlet Now Available

Dear Colleagues:

The response to our pamphlet has been overwhelming and coming from advocates all over the world. Anna Charlton and I are very happy that so many people are finding the pamphlet of use in their educational efforts.

We are working as quickly as possible to make foreign language versions. Through the efforts of Karin Hilpisch and Barna Mink, we now have a German version available.

You can download the German version by clicking here.

The German version is provided in a format that will fit A4 paper size.

We also now have an English version that is available for A4 paper. You can download it by clicking here.

Please also remember that our video presentations, Theory of Animal Rights, Animals as Property, Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare, and Animal Law, are all available in German (as well as in French, Spanish, and Portuguese).

Karin Hilpisch, who translated the videos, has also translated a number of blog essays into German.

We are working diligently to make the abolitionist approach to animal rights accessible to advocates around the world and, again, we are very happy that so many of you are finding that the pamphlet facilitates your effort to engage in creative, nonviolent vegan education.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Vegan Education Made Easy—Part 3: An Abolitionist Pamphlet

Dear Colleagues:

During the past year, I have received more than a hundred requests to produce a pamphlet that presents the abolitionist approach in an accessible way. So, with production help from Barna Mink and Randy W. Sandberg, Anna Charlton and I created a Tri-Fold pamphlet that we offer to you to facilitate your efforts to educate your family, friends, and community about veganism in a nonviolent and creative way.

Here is what the pamphlet looks like:

You can download the pamphlet by clicking here.

The pamphlet is presently available only in English. We will be providing French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese versions in the near future and we would like to provide it in even more languages later on.

We hope that you find this pamphlet to be useful.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

A Comment on the Austrian Situation

This morning, I received a copy of a press release concerning the arrest and detention of Martin Balluch and other animal advocates in Austria. These advocates are apparently being held without any formal charges being filed against them. I have also read the Amnesty International statement that is translated on the website of Balluch’s organization. Amnesty International expresses concern about the lack of specificity of the search warrants, the manner in which the warrants were executed, the fact that the accused are not being fully informed of the evidence against them or being given access to their counsel, and the use of statutes intended to address organized crime, which risks criminalizing or chilling the legitimate and peaceful expression of protected speech and threatens freedom of association.

According to Amnesty International, the Austrian authorities are claiming that the accused acted through their organizations to conspire to commit or to cause to be committed acts of “criminal damage to property, duress, menacing threat.”

I have absolutely no idea whether there is any evidence to support these charges. And I have been very clear for many years now that I oppose all violence and regard the principle of Ahimsa as the foundation for the abolitionist movement. But it does not matter what Balluch and the others are accused of. They, like everyone accused of criminal wrongdoing, are entitled to know with specificity the charges against them and to know what evidence exists to support those charges; they are entitled to assistance of counsel; they are entitled not to have the execution of a search warrant be an occasion for harassment; and they are entitled not to have their legitimate and legal activities disrupted by the overreaching use of organized crime statutes.

I find it very difficult to believe Balluch’s claim that the Austrian government is persecuting him and the others because of their role in campaigning for Austrian animal welfare laws. These laws are hardly a cause for alarm by anyone. As I discussed in an earlier essay, the Austrian laws, like welfare laws generally, further entrench animal exploitation and do nothing to eradicate the property status of animals.

But that is beside the point. If the Austrian authorities have evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they should file formal charges and initiate a public and transparent prosecution. If they do not have evidence, then they should release those being held.

I have been a lawyer for almost 30 years and I have represented many individuals, including many animal advocates, who have been harassed by the authorities. I have also taught Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure for many years. I fully understand how the weight of the criminal process can be wielded by governments. It is very disturbing to see liberal democracies that supposedly celebrate “the rule of law” routinely ignore it. This is an example. Unfortunately, it is one of many.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

PETA and KFC: “no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated”

Anthropologist Margaret Mead once said “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has invoked Mead’s quotation to pat itself and its supporters on their welfarist backs for the agreement by the Canadian division of Kentucky Fried Chicken to “purchase 100 percent of its chickens—through a phase-in program—from suppliers that use ‘controlled-atmosphere killing’ (CAK), the least cruel method of bird slaughter available. CAK works by replacing birds’ oxygen with a mixture of nonpoisonous inert gasses to gently put them ‘to sleep.’”

In addition, KFC Canada has agreed to add what PETA characterizes as a “totally cruelty-free option” to its menu in 65% of its Canadian stores: a faux chicken sandwich that will come in a wrap with non-vegan mayonnaise. Moreover, KFC Canada has agreed to “[i]mprove its animal welfare audit criteria to reduce the number of broken bones and other injuries suffered by birds,” urge (but not require) its suppliers to make other welfare improvements, and to form an animal welfare advisory council. And PETA will be empowered: KFC will allow “PETA to review its animal welfare audit forms every six months.”

PETA, “thrilled to announce” what it characterizes as an “historic new animal welfare plan,” “enormous victory,” and “historic victory!” has officially ended its boycott of KFC Canada. But PETA warns that “the cruelty in other nations continues.”

Poor Margaret Mead must not merely be rolling over in her grave; she must be spinning at high speed.

Read more