Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I talk with Rob Johnson, an abolitionist vegan in the United Kingdom. While a student at the University of Aberdeen, Rob started Grampian Animal Rights Advocates, which, as Rob explains, started as a new welfarist group. Rob has formed Vegan U.K., a grassroots organization designed to provide support and information about veganism and abolition for individuals and other grassroots groups. Rob also writes a blog, Animal Rights U.K.

It is my hope that with Commentaries like this one and the ones that I did with Jeff Perz and Renata Peters and with Leila Fusfeld of the Peace Advocacy Network will give you ideas about the wide range of things that can be done to promote the view that animals are not resources and that their membership in the moral community means that we cannot eat, wear, or use them.

**********

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do. If you are vegan, educate everyone you can about veganism.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2011 Gary L. Francione

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Dear Colleagues:

My most recent book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, involves a debate between me and Professor Robert Garner of the University of Leicester.

In this Commentary, Professor Garner and I discuss our book. Garner’s position, although a form of what I call “new welfarism,” is different from that of Singer and most others. To start with, Garner is not an act utilitarian, as is Singer. Like Singer (and Regan), Garner does not recognize that animal life has moral value equal to human life but he thinks that an animal’s interest in not suffering should be protected with a “right.” He equivocates about whether this right is a right not to suffer “unacceptably,” in which case his position collapses into a form of welfare (similar to what I have discussed in my 1995 book, Animals, Property, and the Law, as the new welfarist “right to humane treatment”), or whether the right not to suffer is an absolute right, in which case Robert’s position would rule out all animal use because, as I point out in our book, all use involves some form of suffering, distress, etc. As I also discuss in our book, if Garner understands this right in an absolute sense, then there are theoretical problems understanding the derivation of any such right and Garner’s promotion of welfarist reform is both theoretically and practically inconsistent with any such right.

In our discussion here, we focus on the following questions that I prepared:

1. In our book, you state that animals have a right not to suffer “unacceptably.” How do you determine what levels of suffering are “acceptable”?

2. Although you think that factory-farming cannot be morally justified, if animals could be raised in a pleasant way with minimal suffering and killed in a relatively painless way for food, or if animals could be used in experiments with minimal suffering and significant benefits for humans, you could not object, could you?

Let’s take a very clear example: I have a cow who lives in the back garden. I treat her very well. I shoot her (one bullet; instantaneous death) and kill her and eat her. Have I done anything morally wrong?

3. In our book, you state: “I am accepting the view that, all things being equal, nonhuman animal life (of most nonhuman species at least) is of less moral value than human life.” p. 187 Why do you take this position?

4. A central point of disagreement between us is that you believe that regulationist groups, such as the RSPCA, CIWF, PETA, HSUS are seeking and achieving “worthwhile” wins. Do you believe that any of these “wins” does much more than make animal use more economically efficient? If so, can you identify them?

5. Do you believe that these groups are stimulating demand for “higher welfare” products in a way that will adversely affect overall demand? Given that all of these groups are promoting “happy” exploitation labels, can you doubt that whatever the effect will be, these groups believe that these labels will make people feel more comfortable about exploitation?

I hope that you enjoy the discussion.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2011 Gary L. Francione

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Dear Colleagues:

The Peace Advocacy Network was founded in 2010 as a grassroots group completely run by volunteers that works for the the absence of violence in the lives of animals—human and non-human alike.

One of the PAN projects is Vegan Pledge. From the PAN website:

The Vegan Pledge started in the UK. Board members of Peace Advocacy Network brought the Pledge to Philly last year [2009], and with great success. Thirty non-vegan people pledged to go vegan for 30 days with the Pledge program’s support. This support included weekly meetings consisting of cooking classes, environmental and health speakers, a personal mentor (experienced vegans), social events for support, and an incredible care package to make 30 days of being vegan that much easier. This year, the Pledge is expanding to more cities, and we need you.

PAN President, Leila Fusfeld says: “Although the Vegan Pledge itself only lasts for one month, the program is designed to give participants the tools and knowledge to help them stay vegan for life.”

PAN is an example of a group that makes the connection between human rights and animal rights issues and the importance of nonviolence. The PAN Vegan Pledge Project is an exciting example of creative, nonviolent vegan advocacy. In this Commentary, Leila Fusfeld will join me to explain more about the Vegan Pledge Campaign and how you can bring this exciting campaign to your community.

For more information about the Vegan Pledge, click here. If you are already a vegan and are interested in being a mentor, speaker, or food preparation demonstrator, click here If you want to support this effort by sponsoring a pledge, contact Peace Advocacy Network

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I discuss three issues.

First, I talk about my new book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, co-authored with Professor Robert Garner, and published by Columbia University Press.

This book focuses on the debate ongoing in the animal advocacy community: should we pursue welfare reform as a means to the end of achieving animal rights? I argue against welfare reform; Garner argues for it.

Second, two weeks ago, on October 26, 2010, we launched the Abolitionist Approach Forum, a place where those interested can discuss the theoretical issues concerning abolition and veganism and practical ideas on creative, nonviolent vegan education, as well as exchange information about nutrition, vegan food, raising vegan children, etc.

So far we have 200+ members and the discussions are terrific. There are only two rules: civil, respectful discourse and no promotion of violence.

If you are interested in learning more about vegan philosophy and the abolitionist approach to animal rights, consider joining the Forum.

Third, I present a response to Nicolette Hahn Niman, of the Niman Ranch, which sells “happy” meat that is, according to the website, “Humanely Raised on Sustainable U.S. Family Farms and Ranches.”

In a recent essay published in The Atlantic, Dogs Aren’t Dinner: The Flaws in an Argument for Veganism, Ms. Niman denies that we suffer from moral schizophrenia when we treat some animals as members of our families but stick forks into others. Her analysis, in a nutshell, is that, as a cultural matter, we have a different relationship with dogs than we do pigs.

That is precisely the problem: as a cultural matter, we treat some sentient nonhumans as things and some as persons. But cultural norms cannot serve as any sort of justification of cultural norms! If they could, then racism, sexism, and all sorts of discrimination and human rights violations would be justified.

I hope that you enjoy the Commentary.

If you are not vegan, why aren’t you vegan? It is not necessary in any way for humans to exploit nonhumans. So why do it? Going vegan is easy; better for your health; and, most important, the very least you can do if you regard animals as having moral significance.

If you are vegan, then educate others in a creative, nonviolent way.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I have an extended discussion with two abolitionist vegan advocates, Jeff Perz and Renata Peters. Jeff and Renata live in Alice Springs, Australia, a remote and small city in central Australia dominated by the cattle industry and exactly the sort of place where you would think it impossible to generate enthusiasm about veganism.

But Renata and Jeff prove that anywhere can be the home of a vegan movement—if you want it!

Jeff is a Canadian; Renata is Australian. Together, these two vegans, who are also into non-violent communication, discuss with me how they became vegan, why they are abolitionists, and what they are doing in Alice Springs to educate people about veganism.

Renata and Jeff will show you that you do not need a large organization or a big budget to do effective vegan advocacy. All you need is the willingness to work hard and to think creatively about how best to educate the community in which you live. Vegan cupcakes help!

I found my discussion with Jeff and Renata to be inspiring and I know that you will as well.

At the outset of the Commentary, I discuss briefly a new campaign by the British welfarist group, Animal Aid, which is:

calling for CCTV to be installed in all UK slaughterhouses and for the footage to be made available to independent parties outside of the slaughterhouse. We also want better independent training, regular retraining and assessment, rigorous enforcement of the laws and an end to those with outstanding convictions for violence or animal cruelty working in slaughterhouses.

A slaughterhouse whose contract with a large British supermarket chain was suspended after allegations of animal cruelty by Animal Aid had its contract reinstated after “improvements at the abattoir, including the introduction of CCTV” as demanded by Animal Aid.

Andrew Tyler of Animal Aid commented:

“It shows quite clearly the importance of our investigation that the company says its own standards have improved dramatically,” he said.

“That underlines in absolutely clear terms that what we are doing, and what we will continue to do, is a vital task “We are pleased that CCTV has been introduced. It’s absolutely vital that the footage is not just collected, but is regularly scrutinised by Sainsbury’s and the regulatory authority,” said Mr Tyler.

As you might guess, many animal advocates are understandably outraged that Animal Aid is now forming partnerships with institutional exploiters to promote and sell “happy” meat.

A colleague from Britain wrote to me and shared a reply that she had received from Tyler in response to her objection to this foolish campaign. Tyler attempted to justify the CCTV campaign with the following example:

Take this example: you are at a ‘livestock’ market and see a sheep repeatedly kicked in the head and stamped on. Do you intervene to end that extreme abuse or would you regard that as ‘welfarist’ given that, even if you stopped the kicking and stamping, the sheep will still be slaughtered?

Ingrid Newkirk of PETA made the same argument almost 20 years ago when, in the context, of promoting animal welfare reform that she claimed would move us closer to animal rights, argued that those who opposed welfare reform would deny a thirsty cow water on the way to the slaughterhouse.

I discussed Newkirk’s position in my 1996 book, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. I argued that if I were a guard in a concentration camp, I would certainly give water to a political prisoner being taken for execution. But if I concluded that the concentration camp for political prisoners was, as a general matter, an unjust and immoral institution, I would quit my job and campaign for shutting down the camp. I would not campaign for giving water to prisoners about to be shot, or other measures designed to whitewash the immorality of the institution.

My reply to Newkirk applies to Tyler’s example. Sure, I would stop the sheep from being kicked. I would imagine that most sheep owners and slaughterhouse operators would do the same. After all, kicking the sheep causes carcass damage and that reduces the value of the sheep. But would I campaign for more “humane” treatment of sheep? Absolutely not. That does nothing more than whitewash an inherently immoral institution and make the public more comfortable about eating meat.

And that is exactly what Animal Aid is doing. It is encouraging the public to believe there is a right and a wrong way to exploit animals.

There is not. There is only a wrong way.

People should not engage in child molestation. But if there are going to do so, it is better that they not torture the children as well as sexually molest them. But should we campaign for more “humane” child molestation? No, of course not. There is no right way to engage in child molestation, just as there no right way to engage in the torture and killing of animals.

It is disturbing to see how many meat/dairy consumers are praising the Animal Aid campaign. But it is to be expected. Animal Aid is selling them an indulgence and, for a donation, telling them that they can continue to exploit, as long as they buy from a supermarket that gets its meat from a slaughterhouse with CCTV.

It’s really appalling and I ask all abolitionist animal rights advocates in the U.K. not to support this ill-advised campaign (although I am sure that the U.S. welfarists will jump on this bandwagon as well). And, while you are at it, U.K. advocates: please write to Viva! and request that they stop selling non-vegan cookbooks, stop promoting non-vegan restaurants and inns, and stop portraying eating dairy products as morally better than eating flesh.

I should add that 20 years ago, Newkirk was saying that we had to support welfare to move us closer to animal rights. Well, it’s 20 years later and if Newkirk thinks we’re any closer—even an inch—she is in deep denial. And we now have Tyler trotting out the same ridiculous argument.

If you are not a vegan, go vegan. It is easy, better for your health and the planet, and, most important, it is the right and just thing to do. It’s what we owe other animals. If you are vegan, then educate others about veganism.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Podcast: Play in new window | Download