Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

Euphoria? For Whom?

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:58:24 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In my previous blog post, Partners in Exploitation, I discussed the various labeling schemes endorsed and promoted by HSUS, PETA, and other animal welfare corporations.

Well low and behold, yesterday, I went to the local Whole Foods Market, you know, the one to which PETA gave the Best Animal-Friendly Retailer award, and I picked up a copy of the Whole Foods magazine, “Whole Deal.”

And there was a coupon for “All Natural Brown Cow Parfaits,” which are apparently combinations of different flavors of yogurt.

Yogurt? But doesn’t that involve animal suffering and death?

Not to worry. As you can see:

This yogurt carries the “Certified Humane Raised & Handled” label. The Certified Humane Raised and Handled Label is the stamp of approval of an organization called Humane Farm Animal Care, which developed the label with its partners, including the Humane Society of the United States. The HFAC/HSUS label is described as “a consumer certification and labeling program” to give consumers assurance that a labeled “egg, dairy, meat or poultry product has been produced with the welfare of the farm animal in mind.”

The fine print on the coupon says that the Brown Cow Parfait:

“Meets the Humane Farm Animal Care Program standards, which include nutritious diet without antibiotics, or hormones, animals raised with shelter, resting areas, sufficient space and the ability to engage in natural behaviors.”

Please note that cow on the coupon is wearing a little service cap and holding a spoon in her mouth. So it’s all okay. You see, she’s willingly serving you this product, made from her suffering and death and the suffering and death of her children.

The coupon has “Euphoria!” written at the top. “Euphoria” is defined as a “sense of happiness or well-being.”

And whose euphoria, whose sense of happiness or well being are we talking about?

Perhaps the euphoria of Humane Farm Animal Care, which charges fees for its little stamp-of-approval? Perhaps the euphoria of HSUS, which promotes these “humane” products so that HSUS members and the public in general can feel warm and furry about eating the products of animal torture? Perhaps the euphoria of Whole Foods, who peddle “humane” animal flesh and “happy” animal products and make a fortune doing so? Perhaps the euphoria of PETA, who gives awards to places like Whole Foods so that it, like HSUS, can cash on the “happy meat” fundraising and encourage animal consumption?

One thing of which we can be completely certain: It is not the euphoria of the cow.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s incredibly easy. It is better for your health. It is better for the planet, which sustains all life. And most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Partners in Exploitation

Gary L. Francione — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:04:48 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Making society feel more comfortable about animal exploitation and encouraging consumption are more often than not an explicit goal of animal welfare campaigns and organizations.

For example, many of the large animal advocacy groups in the United States and Britain are involved in promoting labeling schemes under which the flesh or products of nonhumans is given a stamp of approval. For example, Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC), with its partners HSUS, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal People, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, and others, promotes the “Certified Humane Raised & Handled” label, which it describes as “a consumer certification and labeling program” to give consumers assurance that a labeled “egg, dairy, meat or poultry product has been produced with the welfare of the farm animal in mind.”

HFAC emphasizes that “[i]n ‘food animals, stress can affect meat quality . . . and general [animal] health’”and that the label “creates a win-win-win situation for retailers and restaurants, producers, and consumers. For farmers, the win means they can achieve differentiation, increase market share and increase profitability for choosing more sustainable practices.” Retailers win as well because “[n]atural and organic foods have been among the fastest growing grocery categories in recent years. Now grocers, retailers, restaurants, food service operators and producers can benefit from opportunities for sales and profits with Certified Humane Raised & Handled.”

The Humane Society International, an arm of HSUS, has launched a “Humane Choice” label in Australia that it claims “will guarantee the consumer that the animal has been treated with respect and care, from birth through to death.” A product bearing the “Humane Choice” label assures the consumer of the following:

[T]he animal has had the best life and death offered to any farm animal. They basically live their lives as they would have done on Old McDonald’s farm, being allowed to satisfy their behavioural needs, to forage and move untethered and uncaged, with free access to outside areas, shade when it’s hot, shelter when it’s cold, with a good diet and a humane death.

Whole Foods Market, Inc., a chain of supermarkets located in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, to which PETA gave an award to as Best Animal-Friendly Retailer, claims to be working “with our knowledgeable and passionate meat and poultry providers as well as with forward thinking humane animal treatment experts” in order to “not only improve the quality and the safety of the meat we sell, but also support humane living conditions for the animals.” Whole Foods also claims that “species-specific Animal Compassionate Standards, which require environments and conditions that support the animal’s physical, emotional, and behavioral needs, are currently being developed. Producers who successfully meet these voluntary Standards will be able to label their products with the special ‘Animal Compassionate’ designation.” PETA, Peter Singer, and other welfarist organizations have enthusiastically endorsed the “Animal Compassionate Standards.”

The RSPCA in Britain has the “Freedom Food” label, which is “the farm assurance and food labelling scheme established by the RSPCA, one of the world’s leading animal welfare organisations. The scheme is a charity in its own right, set up in 1994 to improve the welfare of farm animals and offer consumers a higher welfare choice.” The RSPCA provides “certification for farmers, hauliers, abattoirs, processors and packers and the scheme approves well-managed free-range, organic and indoor farms.”

The Freedom Food label “gives consumers the assurance that the scheme is backed by the RSPCA, one of the most respected animal charities in the world.” The RSPCA advises that consumers can show their support for improving farm animal welfare and higher welfare standards “by choosing products with the Freedom Food logo.” Producers can add value to their animal products because the Freedom Food label “differentiates your product and can give you a competitive advantage. Displaying the Freedom Food logo enables consumers to identify your products as higher welfare.” Producers also benefit because of increased margins, the development of a “niche” for “higher welfare” products that allows producers to “widen . . . [the] target market,” and “[a]ssociation with the RSPCA, one of the most well known animal welfare charities in the world.”Moreover, producers can “[g]ain credibility within the supply chain” and get other economic benefits, including cheaper farm insurance provided through the RSPCA. And the RSPCA will actually help producers to market their animal flesh and other animal products: “We use a variety of marketing tools including advertising, pr, website, exhibitions, sampling and in-store promotions. We also work closely with national retailers to develop joint promotional activities, undertake joint campaigns with the RSPCA and offer marketing support to our members.”

It is clear in my view that these large animal corporations have become partners with industry to promote the consumption of animal products.

This topic will be discussed and debated in the forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I co-authored with Professor Robert Garner, and which Columbia University Press will be publishing shortly.

An remember: THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Eight Animals

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:17:35 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

This morning’s AOL News carried a story, PETA’S Euthanasia Rates Have Critics Fuming.

The story states that PETA:

euthanizes over 90 percent of the dogs and cats relinquished to its headquarters in Norfolk, Va. In 2009, PETA euthanized 2,301 dogs and cats — 97 percent of those brought in — and adopted only eight, according to Virginia state figures. And the rate of these killings has been increasing. From 2004 to 2008, euthanasia at PETA increased by 10 percent.

I checked the documents that PETA filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and confirmed that the AOL story is correct. PETA killed 681 dogs and 1620 cats. PETA also killed 51 “other companion animals.”

That’s a total of 2352 animals.

And PETA adopted eight animals. Eight animals.

That is a disgrace. “Euthanasia” is death that is in the interest of the human or nonhuman euthanized. Euthanasia is never in the interests of a healthy being.

PETA apparently shares Peter Singer’s view that a relatively painless death does not constitute a harm for nonhuman animals because, unlike humans, most nonhumans are not self-aware and cannot grasp what it means to “have a life.” In order to have an interest in your continued existence, you must be human. So those 2352 animals that PETA killed weren’t really harmed. They did not care about their lives anyway. Nothing was taken from them when they were killed.

What unmitigated, speciesist nonsense.

According to the Economic Research Institute, PETA has revenue of $31,053,316 and assets of $19,759,999.

How much of this money went for an adoption program?

How many PETA celebrities are promoting the adoption of PETA animals rather than talking off their clothes to “go naked” for the glory and relentless publicity and promotion of PETA?

Eight animals? It would seem that the office staff could have adopted more than that.

Combine this with PETA’s sexism, and its giving awards to slaughterhouse designers and grocery chains that sell “happy” meat and animal products, and it is clear that PETA is nothing but a joke, albeit, for the animals, a most tragic one.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

P.S. Added March 11, 2010:

Last evening, I made a comment on Twitter:

Temple Grandin announces that she is going to design “humane” facilities at PETA to handle slaughter of thousands of “rescued” animals.

This was obviously intended to parody the fact that PETA gave Grandin an award and they call her a “visionary” for designing slaughterhouses that PETA praises.

A considerable number of people thought that the comment was serious. I find it fascinating that PETA has gone so far in the direction of exploiting animals that people would think the comment was serious. That tells us a great deal about the confusion rampant in a movement in which “animal rights” means “we take in 2300 animals; we kill all but 8.”

By the way, I also posted this on Twitter:

HBO to retitle documentary on PETA’s Newkirk from “I Am An Animal” to “I Am An Animal (But Not One of the Ones We ‘Rescue’ and Kill).”

That was also said in jest although it, too, is a possibility, I suppose.

Veganism: Just Another Way of Reducing Suffering or a Fundamental Principle of Justice & Nonviolence?

Gary L. Francione — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:18:23 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

It is important to understand that there are significant differences among those who regard themselves as vegans.

One important difference is between those who maintain that veganism is merely a way of reducing suffering, and those who maintain that it is a fundamental commitment to justice, nonviolence, and a recognition of the moral personhood of nonhuman animals.

The difference between these two groups is not merely a matter of abstract theory—it has profound practical consequences.

The prevailing position on veganism among new welfarists is that veganism is a way—one way—of reducing suffering. Understand in this manner, veganism is no different than cage-free eggs or meat produced from a slaughterhouse designed by PETA-award winner Temple Grandin. These are, new welfarists claim, all just ways of reducing suffering. If X chooses to reduce suffering by being a vegan, great; if Y chooses to reduce suffering by eating cage-free eggs, great. If X decides to reduce suffering on Monday by eating no animal products and on Tuesday by eating “humanely” produced animal products, that’s fine. To maintain that, as a moral matter, X should be a vegan on Monday and Tuesday and every other day is “absolutist,” “fundamentalist,” or “fanatical.”

People like Peter Singer, and groups like “Vegan” Outreach and PETA maintain this position. For example, Singer maintains that being a “conscientious omnivore” is a “defensible ethical position.” He claims that being a consistent vegan is “fanatical.” Singer labels himself a “flexible vegan” who will be non-vegan when it is convenient. He mentions eating free-range eggs and dairy. He talks about the “luxury” of eating meat and other products from animals who have been well treated, in his view, and killed “humanely.” PETA claims that adherence to veganism as a matter of principle is a matter of “personal purity,” “narcissistic cultural fad,” and “fanatical obsession.” “Vegan” Outreach makes the emphasis on suffering clear and downplays the use of animals in claiming that veganism:

is not an end in itself. It is not a dogma or religion, nor a list of forbidden ingredients or immutable laws—it is only a tool for opposing cruelty and reducing suffering.

A fundamental assumption of the new welfarist position is that killing animals does not per se inflict a harm on them. Animals do not care that we use and kill them; they only care about how we treat them and kill them. As long as they don’t suffer too much, animals are indifferent to our using them. They have no interest in continued existence.

It is this thinking that has led to the “happy” meat/animal products movement, which has been the most serious setback in the struggle for justice for nonhumans in decades. It is this thinking that leads PETA and Singer to maintain that we may have a moral obligation not to be vegan in situations in which others will be annoyed or disconcerted by insistence on veganism.

I reject this view. I believe that it is speciesist to maintain that nonhumans must have minds similar to human minds in order to have an interest in continued existence. Any sentient being has an interest in continued life in that she prefers, wants, or desires to remain alive.

We can no more justify using nonhumans as human resources than we can justify human slavery. Animal use and slavery have at least one important point in common: both institutions treat sentient beings exclusively as resources of others. That cannot be justified with respect to humans; it cannot be justified with respect to nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them.

The abolitionist approach sees veganism as the application of the principle of abolition to the life of the individual. It is our personal expression that we embrace the moral personhood of all sentient beings and we reject the status of nonhumans as chattel property. Veganism is an essential part of our commitment to nonviolence.

Veganism is not just a way of reducing suffering; it is what justice for nonhumans requires at the very least. It is not the last step in our journey to reject the moral schizophrenia that characterizes the human/nonhuman relationship; it is the first step. If animals have any moral significance, then we cannot eat, wear, or use them. A vegan is not a vegan only on Mondays, or only when it is convenient. A vegan is a vegan all the time. I would no more not be vegan just because my being vegan made someone else uncomfortable than I would remain silent if someone told a racist joke or harassed a woman because to object would make the perpetrator uncomfortable.

It is no more “absolutist” or “fanatical” to be a consistent vegan as it is to be consistent in one’s rejection of rape or pedophilia. Indeed, to characterize consistent veganism as “absolutist” is itself speciesist precisely because we would not so characterize our complete rejection of fundamental forms of human exploitation.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It really is easy. It is better for our health and reduces the violence that we do to ourselves. It is better for the planet and reduces the harm that we do to the home of sentient beings and to the ecosystems that sustain all life. But, most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do. We all say we reject violence. Let’s take what we say seriously. Let’s take an important step to reduce violence in the world starting with what we put in our mouths or on our bodies.

And remember, it’s not an impossibility: THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

New Book Coming Soon!

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:09:28 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

My newest book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, will be published by Columbia University Press in May. In the first section, I defend the abolitionist approach. In the second section, Professor Robert Garner of the University of Leicester (U.K.) defends the protectionist approach (what I refer to as “new welfare”). In the third section, Professor Garner and I discuss and debate issues such as the moral status of nonhuman animals and the efficacy of welfare reform.

I hope that this book will help you to think through the issues involved and that it will assist you in your advocacy efforts.

If you are not vegan, go vegan! Animal products are injurious to your health and animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. But most importantly, veganism is the morally right thing to do. It represents your daily celebration of nonviolence.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Opposing Views: On Violence

Opposing Views: On Violence

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:41:43 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Opposing Views posted my essay, On Violence. It generated a lively discussion with well over 200 comments. Read the various threads and make up your own mind.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

On Violence

Gary L. Francione — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:44:52 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Unfortunately, there are people who identify themselves as animal advocates who claim that the solution to the problem of animal exploitation is violence.

Some of these people have actually engaged in acts of violence against institutional exploiters. Others incite acts of violence by calling on people to use “intimidation” against animal exploiters or to make animal exploiters “fearful” of retaliatory violence.

Putting aside the moral/spiritual aspects of violence, those who promote violence are deeply confused about the basic economics of animal exploitation. Institutional users engage in animal exploitation because the public demands it. Institutional users are, for the most part, indifferent to whether they are selling beef or bananas. They will put their capital wherever they’ll get the best return.

Most people regard animal use as “normal” in the same sense that breathing and drinking water are considered as “normal.” They demand animal products. If you destroy ten slaughterhouses today, as long as demand remains, ten more slaughterhouses will be built or ten existing ones will expand production (and probably make production more economically efficient). If you shut down a supplier of animals used for vivisection, and the public continues to support vivisection, which it clearly does, then another supplier will emerge. So as a purely practical matter, violence is a strategy that cannot work.

As long as animal use is regarded as normal and as not raising a fundamental moral question, nothing will ever change. But we are not going to get people to think about animal use through intimidation, fear, and acts of violence. Education, if it is to be effective, can never be violent; it can never seek to intimidate or make people fearful. It must open their hearts and their minds. The non-violent strategy is anything but passive; it involves our working actively, constantly, and creatively to shift a fundamental paradigm—the notion that animals are things, resources, property; that they are exclusively means to human ends.

And it is clear that our efforts to educate are working. There is a dialogue emerging about the use of animals that goes beyond questions of “humane” treatment. There is a constant stream of stories about how people are becoming increasingly aware of the moral schizophrenia that characterizes the human/non-human relationship.

Those who advocate violence are not only confused about basic economic issues, but they are hindering this progress because they provide an easy target that gives people an excuse to dismiss the issue of animal exploitation. In this respect, the pro-violence people are similar to those who promote sexism.

Would Martin Luther King have campaigned for civil rights, claiming “I’d rather go naked than sit in the back of the bus”?

Of course not.

Would King or Gandhi have urged us to “intimidate” others and to make others “fearful” that they were going to become victims of violence?

Of course not.

Sometimes, when I see some of the things that the pro-violence people say or do (or when I see a video with a woman stripping “for the animals”), I shake my head and wonder what people could do that could be worse in terms of getting the public to take this issue seriously. Indeed, it seems that these people are trying to sabotage meaningful change.

For further discussion of these issues, listen to the Commentary I did on this subject, or read A Comment on Violence, More on Violence and Animal Rights, and On Violence and Vivisection, all of which are on this site.

I also discuss the issue of violence in my forthcoming book, which I co-authored with Dr. Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which will be published by Columbia University Press in May 2010.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Vegetarianism First?

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:00:29 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

The Vegan, the magazine of the The Vegan Society (U.K.), is about to release its Spring 2010 issue. In that issue, I have an essay, Vegetarianism First?, which discusses the notion that we should promote vegetarianism as a “gateway” to veganism and proposes that this is an error on both a theoretical and practical level. I have addressed that issue in other blogs essays on this site (see 1, 2, 3, 4) as well as in my books and articles.

The Vegan Society will be providing me with a higher resolution PDF that I will make available as soon as I can. I hope that this will be useful to you in your advocacy efforts as you engage in creative, nonviolent vegan education.

Also, ROROTOKO is a respected site that selects certain books and interviews authors. My book, Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation, published in 2008 by Columbia University Press, was chosen as the cover interview of the February 1, 2010 issue of ROROTOKO.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Some Comments on Vegetarianism as a “Gateway” to Veganism

Veganism: Morality, Health, and the Environment

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:40:14 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

At least five times a week, I get some version of the following question:

In arguing for veganism, should we stay with just the moral argument and is it somehow “wrong” or “selling out” to rely on the arguments based on human health and the environment?

I am going to do a podcast on this in the near future but I wanted to make one point clear now: the lines between these arguments is not as bright as you might think in that health and environmental arguments have moral dimensions.

When I talk about animal rights, I emphasize the moral argument based on a reinterpretation of the western philosophical tradition. I also discuss the spiritual component of Ahimsa or nonviolence which, for me, has been an important part of my veganism for the past 28 years. The spiritual component is certainly not necessary to get to an abolitionist conclusion; I do not rely on it, for instance, in the philosophical argument that I make in Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?. But my commitment to nonviolence is a significant part of my thinking.

I also talk about health and the environment as part of the moral/spiritual analysis.

We have a moral obligation that we owe to ourselves to be healthy; ingesting products that cause us harm is a form of violence we inflict on ourselves. The empirical evidence becomes stronger each day that animal products are not only not needed for health; they actually cause harm to our bodies in all sorts of ways. Even small amounts of animal products can be harmful. Just as we have a moral obligation not to smoke cigarettes (even a “few”), we have an obligation to make sure that the things we put in and on our bodies (remember that what you put on your skin gets into your body!) do not cause harm. We owe this obligation not only to ourselves, but to the humans and nonhumans who love us and who depend on us.

Similarly, although I do not believe that we can have moral obligations that we owe directly to nonsentient beings, we certainly have an obligation to all of the sentient beings that live in the nonsentient environment. Indeed, because there are so many sentient beings who inhabit the environment, it is difficult to see the environment as nonsentient in any way that would affect our moral obligations. A tree may not be sentient in the sense of being perceptually aware, but there are many sentient beings who live in or on the tree or who depend on the tree. And all sentient beings—human and nonhuman—depend on the environment for a healthy ecosystem. Destruction of the environment raises many serious moral and spiritual questions. An animal-based agriculture is destroying the environment and all of the sentient beings therein.

A common objection to veganism is that if we all ate a plant-based diet, we would have to cultivate more land and that this would result in our killing more sentient nonhumans. But that is not true. At present, we feed most plant food to animals, who require pounds and pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of flesh. If we ate the plants directly, we would need fewer plants and we would not need to destroy ecosystems so that we can have more grazing land.

So, in the end, although I maintain that the moral argument in favor of animal rights and the spiritual argument in favor of nonviolence are the most important notions, we also have moral obligations to ourselves (and to the humans and nonhumans who depend on us) to maintain and improve our health and obligations to humans and nonhumans not to destroy the environment.

As I said at the outset, I will do a podcast soon. But I have to finish the final work on my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which Columbia University Press will be publishing in May. So I may not be doing as much blogging, but I should finish that up soon and be back in full force.

So, if you are not vegan, go vegan. It really is easy. It is better for our health. It is better for the planet. But, most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do. We all say we reject violence. Let’s take what we say seriously. Let’s take an important step to reduce violence in the world starting with what we put in our mouths or on our bodies.

And remember, it’s not an impossibility: THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Is Every Campaign a Single-Issue Campaign?

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:38:44 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

In response to my comments (1,2) about the Johnny Weir matter and to my general comment on single-issue campaigns, some have suggested that if the Johnny Weir matter is a single-issue campaign, then all campaigns, including efforts to promote adoption/rescue, sanctuaries, and even veganism are single issue-campaigns.

This suggestion reveals a profound lack of understanding of the nature of a single-issue campaign.

A single-issue campaign involves identifying some particular use of animals or some form of treatment and making that the object of a campaign to end the use or modify the treatment. The problem of a single-issue campaign is that it presents some particular use or treatment as morally distinguishable from other forms of use or treatment and by doing so explicitly or implicitly suggests that other forms of exploitation are morally less problematic.

The Weir matter presents a classic example of the problem. An Open Letter was written to Weir complaining about his use of fur on the shoulder of his costume. It was not an Open Letter written to the whole team concerning the use of animal skins, including their leather skates or any wool or silk garments. The Open Letter focused on a single animal product being used by a single person in a single instance.

The main problem with this sort of campaign is that there is no coherent moral distinction between/among fur, leather, wool, or silk. Weir very effectively deflected the Open Letter by making that simple observation himself:

“Every skater is wearing skates made out of cow,” Weir said.

“Maybe I’m wearing a cute little fox while everyone else is wearing cow, but we’re all still wearing animals.”

In addition, the Open Letter not only promoted a single-issue campaign, but did so in the context of traditional animal welfare reform because it talks about treatment and not about use. The Open Letter focused on the fur “industry,” and the treatment and killing of animals on fur farms or in the wild. To talk about fur farms and traps is to invite the response: “okay, then we ought to figure out a way to make fur production more ‘humane.’”

As far as domesticated animals, farm animals, and wild animals who need homes in sanctuaries are concerned, attempts or efforts to provide those homes do not constitute single-issue campaigns, or, at least, are not so in the manner that portends the problems that I have identified. By domesticating nonhumans, we have gotten them into an awful mess and if we can remove them from a kill shelter or from the street, we should do so. To the extent that we have the opportunity to provide a home to a domesticated or wild animal, that is a good thing. These are efforts that involve assisting individual animals; they are not campaigns that target uses or practices that we identify as worse than other uses or practices of which we necessarily implicitly approve for the reasons discussed in my earlier essay. They are qualitatively different activities.

And I always talk about animal adoption/rescue within a specific framework that rejects use and emphasizes ethical veganism as the central issue. I never speak about adoption/rescue as some isolated activity but only as one obligation among many that comprise the overall abolitionist approach. Although I support the adoption of homeless nonhumans because those individuals need homes, I am always very clear that we should stop producing or facilitating the production of domesticated nonhumans altogether.

The “Open Letter” to Johnny Weir does none of these things. It would have been possible to write a letter to Weir that mentioned fur as one aspect of an overall abolitionist message that also explicitly discussed the wearing of all animal skins and that mentioned veganism. Such a letter would have presented a powerful message rather than a weak one that makes fur appear to be morally distinguishable from leather (or the other animal products not even mentioned) and that Weir effectively dismissed in two sentences.

I also support sanctuaries but again, I talk about sanctuaries as one part of an overall abolitionist approach and I promote those sanctuaries that carry an explicitly abolitionist message. To the extent that a sanctuary provides a home for animals, that’s a good thing but to the extent that the sanctuary also supports a welfare reform message or promotes single-issue campaigns, they undo at least part of the good that they do.

I also think that sanctuaries can be used by wealthy groups to do fundraising. If you want to contribute to a sanctuary, you should explore their finances and inquire about the salaries paid to the people who are involved in the organization that runs the sanctuary.

Also, several people have suggested that we should not criticize the welfarist or single-issue campaigns of a group that also runs a sanctuary because it might affect donations to the group and that would harm the animals. This is a variant of the general argument that we hear all the time: “Group X does good things for animals so do not criticize what Group X does because it will harm their efforts to help animals.” That is a certain prescription for disaster and for the death of a social movement. It is precisely that thinking that had led the mainstream movement to stay silent in the face of the obscenity of PETA’s killing 85% of the animals it “rescues” and its relentless use of misogyny as a marketing tactic.

As for veganism being a single-issue campaign, I am not sure what to say because the suggestion reveals such profound confusion that it may not be possible to dispel. Anyway, when I talk about veganism, I talk about not eating, wearing, or using any animal or animal-derived product for any human purpose. But even if you restrict your understanding of veganism to “a vegan diet,” you are still advocating the elimination of a practice that involves more animals than all of the other animal uses combined because everyone who is not a vegan consumes animals and animal products.

Moreover, all animal use is derivative of the fact that we eat animals and animal products. If that changed, everything would follow. For example, someone who accepts that they have a moral obligation not to eat animals and animal products would necessarily also accept that they should not wear fur or attend circuses. Therefore, veganism is qualitatively different from a fur campaign that targets a relatively small section of people or a vegetarian campaign that explicitly or implicitly distinguishes meat from other animal products and sends the message that it is okay to consume non-flesh products.

I hope that helps to clarify the issue of single-issue campaigns. They really do not work and they only create confusion by reinforcing the false idea that certain forms of animal exploitation are less objectionable than others.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

And You Wonder Why the Public Thinks That “Animal Rights” People Are Crazy?

Gary L. Francione — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:08:30 +0000

Dar Colleagues:

From an article, The Rise of Dog Identity Politics, in New York Magazine

For Singer, and for Newkirk, bestiality is not, in all circumstances, prohibited. “If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong,” she has said.

Singer, you will recall, argued a few years back that there can be mutually satisfying sexual activities between humans and nonhumans.

But I am puzzled by Newkirk’s statement. When is sex with a nonhuman not exploitation and abuse?

The New York Magazine article article also states:

Although PETA’s mission statement includes language suggesting that each animal life is intrinsically valuable, the organization’s actions describe a more nuanced picture. PETA kills a surprising number of the animals it takes in. In the decade beginning with 1998, PETA euthanized 17,000 animals—85 percent of those it rescued.

Perhaps the answer to my question is that sex with a nonhuman is not exploitation and abuse after the “rescued” animal is killed (by an “animal rights” group) but is still warm.

Single-Issue Campaigns in Human & Nonhuman Contexts

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:57:03 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

Last evening, I received the following email in response to my blog posts about single-issue campaigns:

Prof. Francione:

If single issue campaigns are not good, then does that mean that we should not support efforts to assist the suffering in Haiti because we’re not assisting the suffering everywhere else? Doesn’t that lead to doing nothing?

[name]

This is a good question. I have addressed it before but in light of my recent postings, it’s a good thing to address again.

When we assist the efforts to help in Haiti, we are not making any statement that the suffering somewhere else is good. We all recognize that the suffering of innocent humans is a bad thing wherever it occurs. The fact that we choose to help in Haiti does not mean that we think that the suffering of humans in, say, Darfur, is good or that those in Darfur matter less. Similarly, the fact that we choose to work on issues of child abuse does not mean that we think rape is acceptable or is morally less objectionable.

In sum, if X, Y, and Z are all viewed as morally undesirable, the choice to work on X does not convey the message that Y and Z are morally acceptable.

When it comes to animals, the analysis is different. Most people think that eating meat, dairy, and all other animal products, or wearing or using animal products, is as natural as drinking water or breathing air. So when we single out one form of animal exploitation, we necessarily distinguish it for moral purposes.

That is, if most people think that eating meat and dairy and eggs is “natural” and raises no moral problem, focusing on meat necessarily conveys the idea that dairy and eggs are different and that their use is morally acceptable or, at least, morally distinguishable.

In sum, if X, Y, and Z are all viewed as morally acceptable and you single out X as morally problematic, you implicitly say to the public that Y and Z are different from X and that they are not morally unacceptable, or are at least morally distinguishable from X.

We see this problem every day: people think that fur is morally different from leather, wool, or silk; they think that meat is morally different from other animal products.

This is the problem of single-issue campaigns in the context of animal exploitation. The same problem does not exist where human issues are concerned.

And we do not need single-issue campaigns in order to engage in incremental activism. There is something that each of us can do every day: be vegan and engage in creative, nonviolent vegan education.

Let me be very clear: I think that single-issue campaigns are problematic and that they risk perpetuating confusion under the most ideal circumstances. I think that advocates are well advised to stay away from single-issue campaigns. If you insist on engaging in single-issue campaigning, please at least make sure to try to mitigate confusion by making sure that the message of “no exploitation” is crystal clear and explicit. For example, if a circus comes to town and you want to protest that event, at least be sure (in addition to being peaceful and nonviolent in your protest) to be explicit in including in your literature and in all of your discussions with people that circuses are merely representative of the problem of animal exploitation as a general matter and that we ought to stop eating, wearing, and using animals altogether. Use the circus as a “discussion point” but do not portray it as morally distinguishable from other forms of animal exploitation.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

On Johnny Weir, Single-Issue Campaigns, Treatment, and Abolitionist Veganism

Gary L. Francione — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:05:47 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

As I stated in my blog essay, I think that the Weir matter was ill advised. Given that all the skaters are wearing leather, wool, etc., the effort was akin to trying to get one person at a steak banquet not to consume one teaspoon of her portion of ice cream.

The Open Letter to Johnny Weir from Friends of Animals is a perfect example of what I regard as the central problem of the single-issue approach: the letter is addressed to Weir because he announced that he planned to wear fur. It was not an Open Letter written to the whole team concerning the use of animal skins, including their leather skates or any wool or silk garments. There is no coherent moral distinction between/among fur, leather, wool, or silk. Weir very effectively deflected the Open Letter by making that simple observation himself.

Moreover, the Open Letter focuses on treatment issues and not on use, which I regard as not consistent with an abolitionist approach. Frankly, whether the fox was killed on a fur farm or in an unpadded trap, padded trap, snare, etc., is irrelevant. If the fox were raised in pleasant surroundings and killed painlessly while sleeping, I would still regard it as objectionable. The Open Letter suggests to the public that the problem is how the fox was treated, not that the fox was used.

As I have written (numerous times), less suffering is always better than more suffering, and I agree with that passage in the Open Letter: “Either way [fur farm or trap], there is nothing glamorous or pretty about the cruelty they endured. And it can’t be morally justified either.” But that neglects that although cruelty is an important issue, the primary point is not that the cruelty cannot be morally justified; the primary point is that the use—however “humane”—cannot be morally justified. That is the idea that we must present clearly and unequivocally to the public if we are ever to shift away from the paradigm of “humane” use.

And what possible difference does it make that foxes are “beautiful”, something mentioned twice in the Open Letter? If they were ugly, would it make a difference? It is precisely this thinking that leads us to be concerned about the killing of baby seals but less concerned about the exploitation of animals less appealing to us. We should not reinforce the notion that it is the animals attractive to us who matter (or matter more) any more than we should promote the notion that a “lovely” model appears in some vegan ad.

I support the efforts of FoA or any other group or person who supports ethical veganism (although FoA appears to spend few resources on vegan education relative to their new welfarist single-issue campaigns). But, in any event, promoting veganism is not necessarily equivalent to promoting abolition, which, for the reasons that I have stated in my books, articles, and essays, excludes these sorts of single-issue campaigns and treatment approaches. That is one reason why I often use the expression abolitionist vegan. Not all vegans are necessarily abolitionists.

I certainly wish that HSUS would launch a “Go Vegan” campaign, but even if it did so, that would not make HSUS an abolitionist organization. The fact that a group promotes veganism does not mean that it is still not a new welfarist group if it continues to promote welfare reform and single-issue campaigns. In fact, if HSUS had a “Go Vegan” campaign, HSUS and FoA would look very similar! (FoA has a number of these single-issue campaigns.) Perhaps that explains why FoA was opposing the “Go Vegan” approach that I urged HSUS to adopt. FoA may have been trying to avoid becoming “HSUS lite” and to stay in the second faction that Vincent Guihan identified in his essay Of HSUS and Hegemony: Abolitionist Veganism as a Rising Force.

As I mentioned in the earlier essay, I have extended an open invitation to Priscilla Feral to discuss these issues with me on a podcast. I hope that she will accept my invitation.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gandhi: On the 62nd Anniversary of His Death

Gary L. Francione — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:47:17 +0000

Dear Collegaues:

Sixty-two years ago today, Mahatma Gandhi was murdered.

Let us meditate for several minutes today on Gandhi’s fundamental teaching of Ahimsa, or nonviolence.

Gandhi said many things worth meditating upon. Two of my favorites are:

You must be the change you want to see in the world.

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.

Remember that violence is the problem; it is not ever going to be the solution. If we want real change, we must change. We must experience a revolution of the heart in which we realize that peace is the only path to pursue. Every other path will lead us astray.

Practice peace and nonviolence in your everyday life; in every interaction that you have. That does not mean that you do not speak the truth. Gandhi was insistent on satyagraha, or holding firmly to truth. But he believed that we should always express that truth without violence in our thoughts, words, and deeds.

No related posts.

A “Victory”? For Whom?

Gary L. Francione — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:39:36 +0000

Dear Colleagues:

It was reported yesterday that the American figure skater, Johnny Weir, has decided not to add white fox to the left shoulder of his free skate costume after he received “‘hate mail and death threats’ from animal rights activists.”

Some animal advocates are calling Weir’s decision a “victory.”

I find this puzzling.

First, like all single-issue campaigns promoted by new welfarists, this incident suggests that there is somehow a morally relevant distinction between fur and other animal products. As Weir himself pointed out:

“Every skater is wearing skates made out of cow,” Weir said.

“Maybe I’m wearing a cute little fox while everyone else is wearing cow, but we’re all still wearing animals.”

Weir’s observation is, of course, correct. And I suspect that there will be a great deal of wool worn as well. This is why single-issue campaigns like this have the effect of confusing, and not educating, the public.

In any event, Weir announcing that he is not going to wear the fur trim is like one person at a steak dinner announcing that s/he is not going to eat the egg custard served for desert. So what?

Second, and more important, Weir’s decision had nothing to do with his rejecting fur on moral grounds.

Weir claims to have received “‘hate mail and death threats’ from animal rights activists”:

“I hope these activists can understand that my decision to change my costume is in no way a victory for them, but a draw,” Weir said in his statement. “I am not changing in order to appease them, but to protect my integrity and the integrity of the Olympic Games as well as my fellow competitors.

“Just weeks away from hitting my starting position on the ice in Vancouver, I have technique and training to worry about and that trumps any costume and any threat I may receive.”

This is not any sort of victory for animals. In fact, it is a defeat. We never succeed when any “victory” is based on violence or threats of violence. Violence is inherently wrong and it is strategically foolish as it reinforces the characterization of “animal people” as crazies who threaten people into submission. That understandably fuels public resentment and frustrates serious discussion about animal exploitation.

Perhaps Weir was concerned he’d get a pie thrown at him while he was skating. Weir’s concern was not baseless. This past week, PETA threw a pie at Canadian Fisheries and Oceans Minister Gail Shea. In any event, Weir made a simple, calculated practical decision, not an ethical one and he let the world know that.

If the paradigm is ever going to shift, we need to effect a revolution of the heart. In my view, the central focus should be creative, nonviolent vegan education. Single-issue campaigns just reinforce the public perception that the animal rights position is incoherent: what is the difference between fur trim and leather skates or wool clothing? And we will never get anywhere with violence or threats of violence. The problem is violence; violence will be no part of the solution.

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

P.S. I cordially extend an open invitation to Priscilla Feral, who is President of Friends of Animals, which is the group that issued the open letter to Weir, to discuss the Weir matter and the wisdom of single-issue campaigns generally with me on a podcast. And, of course, I also remain open to discuss cordially matters of new welfarism with Wayne Pacelle, Ingrid Newkirk, or the heads of other large groups, as well as Peter Singer and Bernie Rollins.

I want to emphasize that I in no way question the sincerity of any of these people. Indeed, I am sure that they are sincere in their beliefs. I just sincerely believe that the new welfarist/single-issue approach is mistaken and I think that discussion can help to sharpen issues.