Opposing Views: OPINION: Rejecting Violence Within the Animal Rights Movement

Rejecting Violence Within the Animal Rights Movement

By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law - August 23, 2009

Comments(36) | (6)

Dear Colleagues:

I am opposed to violence. I regard violence as inherently immoral. I have written about and discussed that issue often, including in essays (1,2) on this site.

I recognize that many of you disagree with my opposition to violence.

But that is irrelevant. Even if you believe that violence can be justified, there are still compelling reasons to maintain that violence makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the struggle for animal rights.

I maintain that the only thing that makes any practical sense is creative, non-violent vegan education. That strategy is anything but passive; it involves our working actively and constantly to shift a fundamental paradigm—the notion that animals are things, resources, property; that they are exclusively means to human ends.

Until we build a critical mass of people who reject that paradigm, nothing will change.

In this Commentary, I discuss the matter of violence.
©2009 Gary L. Francione

Popout

Original audio source (20090822-araa-commentary-5.mp3)

Regarding Article

OPINION: Rejecting Violence Within the Animal Rights Movement

Humans are animals too.

I completely agree. How can we advocate for the abolition of violence towards non human animals by advocating with violence to human animals? It doesn't make any sense. And no, it doesn't work. To say otherwise is absurd.

I am absolutely certain that a violent and imposing approach would have never worked for me, but education and a reality check did it. People are turned away by violent tactics and do not give themselves the time to fully understand the issue because they are annoyed by the ones pursuing it.

AHIMSA, remember.

- Porolita August 24, 2009 12:56PM

Reply to this Recommend (3)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Real change
  
  If through violence we could reach peace, the world would be the most pleasant place to be by now. Humans need to be kind to humans and humans who want to be fair to non-humans have to be fair to humans too.
  
  - Vera August 24, 2009 2:26PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We must reject the paradigms of the oppressor

Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today." -- Malcolm X

It may surprise some people that I've quoted Malcolm in a comment on nonviolence. Many people quote Malcolm X without understanding his deep commitment to peaceful action, to obeying the law , to the rights of individuals and to educating others. But he was a minister, not a guerilla. His legacy is incontestably one of education , tolerance, and patience, not posturing, adventuring or threatening others. He was serious. His legacy was also one of firm clarity, discipline , organization, but most of all, love.

Every moment we spend acting violently, talking violently,engaged in a imitation of the oppressor, is a moment we're not educating. It's a moment we're not making change , and a moment that we're not being courageous and firm in the defense of nonhuman animals . Many of us have been content to build a prison house for our compassion, to refuse to show our compassion for nonhuman animals or human animals by speaking firmly in defense of the rights of all sentient beings.
Both embody a refusal to educate others about veganism. The first proposes an 'indirect approach' that we can educate others about veganism by not educating them about veganism; and the second proposes a violent approach, a view that we don't have to give others the same patient education that someone else gave us. Both are shortcuts. Both are ineffective, and both are morally problematic. Most of all, both reflect a serious sense that the work required to make change is long, hard, and thankless.and that it involves sacrifices that the oppressed call on us to make.

No one can say what the future will bring, but if we want a future in which violence is not tolerated, oppression is not tolerated, slavery is not tolerated, then we have to plan for it today, start building it today, and that means education. That means education tomorrow, the next day and the next. It means education of ourselves and others. When we give up on education before we even get started, it's not militancy. It's not clarity. It's not firmness, and it's not courage. It's confusion. Refusing to educate when we have the opportunity to do so is to misunderstand the moral necessity and the practical effectiveness of education, and to misunderstand education is to misunderstand the very fabric of all meaningful, lasting social change and transformation.

I hope today will be the last day that any of us will be content to allow violence of any kind toward any animal (human or non) for any reason to go uneducated and unchallenged. If we hope for a day when nonhuman animals to get free from slavery, and we wash off the stain that their slavery leaves on each of us, then building a nonviolent mass movement is the only moral defensible and effective way to plan for that future and to bring that day into being.

- vjg August 24, 2009 1:45PM

Reply to this Recommend (4)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"The means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek." - MLK

I completely agree - violence makes absolutely no sense in the context of the struggle for animal rights . Veganism, by its very nature, embodies the notion of nonviolence. How can we expect to gain and maintain credibility for the cause of including animals as members of the moral community if we ourselves fail to adhere to the very precepts that we extol?

- DanielleSavoy August 24, 2009 2:00PM

Reply to this Recommend (4)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nonviolence is both the means and end

The underlying paradigm of veganism and animal rights is nonviolence. Engaging in violence in an attempt to achieve nonviolence is self-contradictory and counterproductive.

Promote nonviolence consistently. Go vegan and peacefully encourage and educate others to go vegan.

- dan August 24, 2009 3:26PM

Reply to this Recommend (3)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
violence is not the way

I guess that often those who propose the violence as way, they really don't know about what they are talking. Who as we, Latin Americans , have lived through some real experience on this matter, we know very well that violence isn't the answer to the violence because we have seen it...
All previous comments perfectly explain the meaning of the struggle for a real animal liberation… thanks to all of you

- Alicia Sangineti August 24, 2009 4:23PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Violence is never the way

I agree completely. I am no wordsmith so I'll use this statement by Gary L. Francione himself, which sums up my view on veganism and animal rights perfectly:

"Ethical veganism results in a profound revolution within the individual; a complete rejection of the paradigm of oppression and violence that she has been taught from childhood to accept as the natural order. It changes her life and the lives of those with whom she shares this vision of nonviolence. Ethical veganism is anything but passive; on the contrary, it is the active refusal to cooperate with injustice." GLF

- Oracl August 24, 2009 5:59PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False impression?

"I recognize that many of you disagree with my opposition to violence..."

I think this gives the false impression that right now hoards of animal rights activists may be out torching cars and making letter bombs. They aren´t.

As an activist myself, just about everyone in the movement I´ve met finds these actions abhorrent let alone futile. Yes there are one or two around that think some form of violence is justifiable (as in many social justice movements before) when 10 billion animals are being slaughtered every year in the US alone, but 99% are peace-loving vegans . Great to underline the reasons why violence is immoral just don´t spend too much time or blog space drawing attention to the actions of a tiny minority.

- astral August 24, 2009 6:12PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- No, not a false impression
  
  Dear Astral:
  
  Two things:
  
  1. I am sorry if the podcast was not clear but what I was saying was that there are many people who disagree with my complete opposition to violence. That is, I am opposed to all violence. There are few people who embrace Ahimsa as a foundational moral principle. I was arguing that even if you believe that violence may be justified in some circumstances (which many people do), it makes no sense in the animal context for the reasons that I gave in the podcast.
  
  2. Although I agree that there are relatively few in the animal movement who support violence, as someone who is the target of groups such as "Negotiation is Over: Go Vegan or Die" and people such as Steve Best, who is the North American spokesperson of the ALF, perhaps my perspective is a bit different from yours.
  
  Gary L. Francione
  Professor, Rutgers University
  www.abolitionistapproach.com
  
  - Gary L Francione August 24, 2009 8:55PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Violence is the Problem

Agreed. Violence has no place within he movement for nonhuman rights.

Here is a comment on a practical problem involved with violence: targeting.

Violence toward humans who exploit nonhumans cannot be carried out in a coherent manner. Since 99% of humans participate in exploiting and murdering nonhumans, the selection of which human(s) to harm is totally arbitrary. Many proponents of violence undoubtedly realize this at some level, and try to compensate by characterizing certain ways of participating in nonhuman exploitation as uniquely horrendous, and targeting individuals accordingly (e.g. rhetoric demonizing vivisection). This attempt at resolving the problem of arbitrary application not only fails as an empirical matter, but sends confusing messages to the public (one by virtue of introducing a new arbitrary distinction!).

First, laborers on the supply side are no more complicit in the nonhuman exploitation being carried out than the 99% of us who commission them to do it (i.e. generate the demand). Thus, the confusing message sent: the supply side bears responsibility for the problem, not the public.

Second, nonhumans are used for many different human ends, from food and clothing to entertainment and education . They *all* involve commodifying sentient beings, and bring about unimaginable death and misery. Thus, the confusing message sent: the particular activity of the human targeted with violence is worse than other forms of exploitation (e.g. vivisection is worse than using nonhumans for food). The dynamic is quite similar to any other single-issue advocacy effort.

A campaign of violence either takes on a single-issue, supply side focus, and the attendant messages sent to the public, or becomes senseless omnidirectional aggression.

- Nathan Schneider August 24, 2009 11:59PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What is happening to animals is violence, we want the opposite

I want to add my voice to the forum in support of non violence. Even if I wasn't ethically opposed to violence to the core of my being, I would be practically opposed. This threat of an escalation in violence by activists hurts the movement immeasurably and is therefore detrimental to all of the non human animals who need us to abolish slavery. It will also do nothing to change the thinking towards non humans, which is what we must do in order to make any difference whatsoever. I prefer success. One violent act by one or two people hurts all of us. As a united, peaceful abolitionist movement we will be unstoppable.

- knuckles August 25, 2009 2:44AM

Reply to this Recommend (3)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Non-violence is certainly the only way

You cannot educate people to change their minds and hearts about how we treat nonhumans by frightening or bullying them into it. The change has to come from within for it to be meaningful and for it to be effective. Violent acts lead to fear and suspicion. It closes people's minds to the message we should all be trying to convey. On a more practical level, it changes human laws to make it harder for those of us who do advocate nonviolent vegan education to spread the message.

- Mylene August 25, 2009 10:47AM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Be the Message

The media and public will ALWAYS focus on the violence or the crazy stunts as a way of dismissing the activists and their message. Violence, through, law and upbringing, is considered wrong by society . So even though society condones and supports violence towards non-human animals , they will always be disgusted when violence is used against humans and human property. The message, as long as there's something more sensational to talk about, will always be lost; these campaigns give people a reason NOT to focus on the issue - we're playing right into their hands by using violence and offensive tactics. We have to appear to be just like everyone else so they can relate to us; that we're ordinary people and we have the same morals and beliefs as they do, but we believe in compassion, respect and basic rights for non-humans as well. If we're violent and use illegal tactics, they can't relate to us. We're different than they are and, like so many people already say, we care more about animals than we do about humans. We reinforce the stereotype when we use violence!
We are "on" every time we speak and write and act; people are watching us very carefully hoping to see the cracks, and when we commit violence or engage in outrageous public displays, people go, "Ahah!, I knew they were crazy/against humans/hypocrites!" We have to live and breathe non-violence so they can look up to us, instead of down on us.

- Bunny Hugger August 25, 2009 8:20PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- rights versus violence
  
  We will still be looking down on you when our rights to what we want to eat, what we want to wear and why medical research has failed us are gone. Obviously the minority wants to rule the majority - what do you have in mind for us ? Why can't you just live your life and let the rest of us live ours ?????
  
  - petakills August 30, 2009 9:43PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - The right to be violent?
    
    I'm all for human rights, except when it involves unnecessary suffering and violence to others (including non-human animals ).
    
    I'm also for basic animal rights ; the right not to be used by humans as property, food , entertainment , etc. They don't have to be in conflict with each other. Respect people, respect animals, and don't cause harm to either.
    
    I don't understand your comment on medical research though. They still use animals in research. Are you saying that using animals is why medical research has failed you? If you are, then I agree.
    
    And it's silly to say that animal rights people or vegans want to rule the majority; we just want the majority to stop being so cruel to others.
    
    As long as people justify the killing and exploitation of others, we will be there to say it's wrong. If people want to make slaves of other people, we will be there to say it's wrong. If you want to use homeless people for medical experiments against their will, we will be there to say it's wrong. If you want to exploit children for cheap labour, we will be there to say it's wrong.
    
    If your way of life means that you have the "right" to harm, exploit, oppress and kill others, we will be there to say it's wrong.
    
    Get it?
    
    - Bunny Hugger August 31, 2009 8:42AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - reply
      
      1st-maybe more of your time & energy should go into solving human to human violence, it is runaway rampant!
      2nd- so you are saying we shouldn't even have pets ? You are totally obliterating our western way of life. thanks for that. You had better be ready to care for thousands of animals and thousands of unemployed angry people.
      3rd- when you have your way medical research will suffer and so will humans, but that doesn't matter to you does it?
      4th-where do you live? have you ever been to rural america? how do you know what goes on everywhere? the great majoity of livestock producers are very kind to their animals and try to keep suffering non existant. Obviously in any living being that can't always be done. Just think about the suffering humanity goes thru. ever been thru an old folks home ? taken a ride on a crowded subway? you will be ruling the majority when you give animals just as many or more rights than humans. you will be taking a complete lifestyle away. but thats ok, animals will have all of their rights.
      5th-I agree, no people should be exploited in those ways. we should also feel safe walking down a street, we don't. it is a bad world when we have to protect our selves from each other. fix that problem first.
      6th-if your way of life means we all have to live by your rules i will be there to say its wrong. get it?
      
      - petakills August 31, 2009 12:38PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what is violence?

I agree that inflicting violence to achieve a non-violent end is hypocritical, however, what is violence? Is property damage to save lives violence? Is sitting at home and not engaging in activism to end exploitation violence?

- progressisdead August 26, 2009 3:35PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- etc
  
  "Every individual who eats flesh food , whether an animal is killed expressely for him or not, is supporting the trade of slaughtering and contributing to the violent deaths of harmless animals ."
  
  ~ Roshi Philip Kapleau
  
  - progressisdead August 26, 2009 5:47PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - carnivores
    
    so, how do you vegans plan on controlling the other carnivores on the planet ? If it isn't right for humans to be a carnivore, tho we were created that way, all living creatures should be vegans. Good luck on convincing all the wild life to go vegan. Never mind the world will be totally over populated, with no death other than natural occuring, all living things will be competeing for vegatarian food . There won't be enough and we will all die by starvation and lack of water - the water will be used by irrigation which will be needed to grow all the crops. You know, there is a limited amount of tillable land, the irrigation systems will have to be enourmous to grow the crops to feed everyone, including the animals . It will take lots of water to make our arid areas productive. And of course we will all be reproducing at a huge rate, before we start dying. And finally, I really don't feel you vegans, peta & hsus members should have the right to force the majority of us into your way of life. Just leave us the hell alone.
    
    - petakills August 28, 2009 11:14AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - please don't talk out of your ass
      
      "ever mind the world will be totally over populated, with no death other than natural occuring, all living things will be competeing for vegatarian food . There won't be enough and we will all die by
      
      Every pound of beef uses 16lbs of wheat/soy/grains, 2500gal of water , the grains used on soley USA livestock could feed 800million people (David Pimentel, Cornell Univ).
      overpopulation=a Harvard study shows livestock outnumber people 3 to 1
      United Nation's Food & Agriculture Organization cites animal agriculture as the worlds #1 water polluter and now uses 70% of amazon forestland
      
      - progressisdead August 29, 2009 9:23AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - reply
        
        a 1200 lb animal would consume 3,000,000 gals, he is processed at 24 months of age, that is 730 days. divide 3,000,000 by 730 is 4,109 gals of water that animal uses per day. NOT HARDLY.
        Why don't we use all the grain we have right now? On good years there is an abundance.
        So what if livestock out number people ? At least the livestock aren't insane.
        And who is United Nations food & agriculture org anyway ? They can say any thing they want people to believe, we all should know you can't believe half of what you hear or read. where do they get their facts? The amazon is
        1.7 BILLION acres, if agriculture has taken over 70% that is 1.19 billion acres. I would almost bet you there is not that much farming and ranching going on. How stupid of those farmers and ranchers, anyway to want to feed their countrys people - after all they can just go to the grocery store, who needs the farmers and ranchers. silly people. Lets all just starve to death and call it good.
        
        - petakills August 31, 2009 1:11PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - please don't talk out of your ass 2
      
      humans created to be carnivores? that's just ignorant.
      There are obligate carnivores who must kill to survive, not allowing them to do so kills them.....it's part of the ecosystem....what is not natural is modern slaughterhouses, resulting in major environmental harm
      humans, however, have a choice. we can choose not to enclose animals in ghastly unnatural conditions , subjecting them to torture for the unnecessarily consumption of flesh
      
      - progressisdead August 29, 2009 9:31AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - modern slaughterhouses
        
        are not natural -- so neither is any city in the entire country. How do you figure a slaughterhouse is a major environmental harm ? Now who is talking out of ones ass. You say humans have a choice - you are trying to take that choice away from everyone who eats meat , milk, cheese etc. animals in ghastly unnatural conditions and torture , sounds like a subway ride in new york to me. you really don't know what you are talking about. I don't know who died and made you god ---
        
        - petakills August 30, 2009 9:19PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Rumbled
      
      petakills: You're from the "Center for Consumer Freedom" aren´t you. Didn´t you take your startup funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company? Now you're mainly a group of animal exploiters who exist to lobby on behalf of the fast food , meat , and dairy industries. Rumbled.
      
      - astral September 1, 2009 9:47AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
veganism?

vegetables are not food . vegetables are what food eats.

Humans are designed to be omnivorous, hence the sharp front teeth and flat back teeth. To reject either side is to do yourself a disservice.

but that is an aside from the point. While I disagree with people saying that "violence never solves anything", in this case it is true. Violence in the cause of animal rights will do little more than polarize both sides, making compromise that much more unlikely.

- LouisCipher777 August 26, 2009 3:39PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Vegetables are not food?
  
  You're joking, right? Because if you believe humans are omnivores, eating flesh AND vegetables is kind of what makes an omnivore an omnivore (along with fruits, nuts, etc.).
  
  I've seen herbivores in nature films (deer In South America, I think), that actually have fangs! Canine incisors in humans do not prove that we should be eating meat . Our canines can't tear flesh the way carnivores do.
  
  Does it mean that because we CAN snort cocaine , we SHOULD BE snorting cocaine? I don't think so.
  
  And violence only begets more violence.
  
  - Bunny Hugger August 31, 2009 1:33PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
misconceptions

Petakills and LouisCipher77, sorry but you both are mistaken. The wild life of the carnivora has not anything in common with the option that the omnivorous human beings have. The omnivorous condition of the human beings means that they can choose what to eat while they support, and they improve, their nutrition. The wild carnivora do not have this option. These are two well different things: do not mix them to justify your taste

- Alicia Sangineti August 28, 2009 11:54AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- technical
  
  what i want to justify is human rights over animal rights . You say humans can choose what they want to eat - that is my point - vegans don't want us to have that choice. They want all of the control, when they control our food , they control us.
  
  - petakills August 31, 2009 1:19PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - there is no Superior
    
    Petakills:
    When you say 'human rights are over animal rights ' you are supporting that humans beings are top beings, that they are the Universe's center. This is an ancient vision but not the only possible one. A different look says that we, humans, are only a part of the Nature. Then, to say that humans can choose is to say that we have an ethical option to do.
    Vegans don't want the control of anything. Vegans want justice for all sentient beings. You have the choice: you can choose to live, healthy and happy without the suffering of nobody or you can choose to live destroying other lives and the environment .
    
    - Alicia Sangineti August 31, 2009 3:26PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - to obvious
      
      I am saying human beings are the smartest overall. of course humans are only a part of the Nature - what kind of idiot wouldn't realize that? Humans can choose, some will be ethical and some won't , that is human nature.
      vegans are taking control of humans by giving justice to all sentient beings. The majority of people do want to use animals for a variety of things, food , entertainment , clothing, science and friendship. I can't say that I would want a hungry wolf for a pet, I would probably rather shoot him before he ate me. that is survival. So-- what kind of a house do you live in, a cave perhaps with no power or running water , clothes none of which are made with animal or petroleum products, do you eat only vegetables that are grown out in the wild with no irrigation or fertilizer. Or do you live in a city and shop in stores? Do you totally practice what you are preaching ? if so, you shouldn't be on this computer right now.
      
      - petakills August 31, 2009 10:41PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Not so obvious
        
        To be the smartest (overall?) not say anything about the moral significance of our acts. And if you think that to give justice to all sentient beings is a matter of controlling others you are really confusing. To give justice to all is essential for the peace. Do you believe that to live with justice and compassion is only possible if we live in caverns? ... If you think, history tell us that in the past we were more wild and unjust than in the present…
        The knowledge allow us to advance towards an evolved civilization… or not. We have to take the decision if we want to leave the caverns after all …
        To practice what I am telling you is easy, it is better (for health , for the planet) and it is the morally right thing to do.
        I am living in a small city, I live very well but I am not a consumer, I am only a citizen, a conscious and free human being.
        I am sorry about my english that is not so fluent to be able to answer and explain to you very well. So I am sure you could find very much information, in your language, if you visit:
        www.aboliotionistapproach.com
        http://nzveganpodcast.blogspot.com /
        www.pcrm.org
        http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com /
        and much more…
        Best regards.
        
        - Alicia Sangineti September 1, 2009 12:40AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Control
    
    I suppose people who fought for women's rights were trying to control how others treated their wives. I suppose people who fought against slavery were trying to control how the slave owners ran their businesses. Anti-war demonstrators are trying to control who we go to war with, etc, etc, etc. Why can't you understand that if your choice harms others for no other reason than your own personal enjoyment, you shouldn't have that right.
    
    - Bunny Hugger August 31, 2009 4:44PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - reply
      
      why can't you understand that by giving rights to one entity you take them away from the other ? Something has to be at the top of the heap, I would much rather it be human, tho some of them should be fed to the animals . i believe humans should have the right to some extent to have enjoyment and be happy - that you should not have the right to take that away. So i am thinking that you are squeaky clean and don't bother other humans, except for me, or any animals, or our enviornment in any way. you must have a very boring existence - by rights you shouldn't even have a pet. I feel sorry for you.
      
      - petakills August 31, 2009 10:59PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Top of the Heap?
        
        What did you or society lose when women, blacks, children and gays were given rights? Nothing, except the "right" to control, oppress and exploit them. So if this is what you're afraid of giving up if animals are given basic rights to freedom, and to living out their lives without human oppression, exploitation and slaughter, then I say boo hoo.
        
        I also believe that humans should have the right to be happy, as you wrote, "to some extent," but not to the extent that causes others to suffer and die. It's interesting that you also wrote that something has to be at the top and I think that's your problem.
        
        You see the world as a hierarchy, I see it as a community. Yours wants to dominate; mine wants to live together in peace. It's all about ego, and considering all the mistakes we've made throughout history and all the suffering we've caused because of ego, greed and power, I'd say it's time we got over it.
        
        And no, I'm not perfect, but I'm trying to live the best life I can, for myself and others I share the planet with, human AND non-human. But thanks for your sympathy, I really appreciate it.
        
        - Bunny Hugger September 1, 2009 5:26AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The problem is demand

As Francione argues, whether or not one agrees with the notion that all violence is morally wrong, according to the fundamental moral principle of treating similar things similarly, nothing speaks in favour of targeting producers and suppliers of animal products rather than consumers.

In a moral sense, institutional animal exploitation is contract killing; producers and suppliers of animal products torture and kill animals on behalf of those who demand animal products, the consumers; without demand, there would be no supply. That's why ''those who consume meat and animal products, who create the demand, bear the ultimate moral responsibility.'' (Francione on the video page of his website)

Consumers exploit animals merely for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience whereas producers and suppliers make a living from it. That doesn't make what they do any more morally justifiable, just that for them, there is a relevant substantial interest at stake. So, if anyone, the primary target of violent activism would have to be consumers, that is, 99 % of the population including the largest part of most animal activists' closest social environment , family, friends, co- workers . But assaulting McDonald's is a lot easier than stopping anyone from going there to eat.

Perpetrating or advocating violence against producers and suppliers is an expression of the failure to see demand as the core issue, in the same way as are negotiations and deals, and the promotion thereof, between animal welfare organizations and animal industry about supposedly more ''humane'' and in fact more profitable ways of exploiting animals. Both courses of action – violence against, and negotiation with, institutional exploiters – are based on denying nonveganism as the root of the problem, and on refusing to make veganism the moral baseline of animal advocacy; both send the message to the public that one can be ''helping the animals'' without being vegan; both are two sides of the same coin which is inimical to the abolition of animal slavery.

- Karin Hilpisch September 5, 2009 2:41AM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animal rights advocates should reject violence

Militant new welfarists claim that violence is an essential component in the struggle for animal rights and that this violence should be directed at producers and suppliers as well as at the government which subsidizes them – that is, at the supply end of the equation .

Yet it would be a radical misunderstanding to suppose, on the one hand that serious animal rights activism could consist of violent militancy, or on the other hand that animal rights could result from attacking supply rather than demand. For demand is the source of animal oppression; and it is we, the consumers, who create the demand. Moreover, violent militancy merely gives the public an excuse to dismiss a serious moral issue and the government a pretext to institute draconian legislation to protect animal industry.

But it is of course easy to see why militant new welfarists claim that we should be violently attacking producers and suppliers. For, as Nathan Schneider points out, if they admitted that demand is the problem it would reduce their approach to absurdity as it would sanction a senseless and indiscriminate attack on just about everyone.

The counterclaim to the effect that industry, together with government, manufactures the demand is absurd on its face. First, it implies that if industry stopped advertising animal products speciesist oppression would simply disappear. The foolish naivety of this should make us pause, I think.

Second, it cannot explain the obvious fact that animal use pre-dates modern advertising – literally by thousands of years.

Third, it is virulently reductive: it assigns no significance to moral, psychological and sociological considerations: as if the problem of animal exploitation could be explained without reference to the fact that people generally do not think that animals have an interest in their lives and also the fact that people are socialized into a world saturated with speciesist norms and values.

Fourth, although industry fosters demand to some extent through advertising, for example by convincing parents that their children need to drink milk for health reasons, this cannot explain why people think it is okay to kill animals. The only thing that can explain this convincingly is the fact that people think that animals do not have an interest in their lives.

In sum: industry's advertising is based upon, and is only acceptable because of, speciesist norms and values. It is not the cause of those values.

I think that we should let the public know that violent militancy is a minority position within the animal rights movement that is rejected categorically by most animal rights advocates as inconsistent with the baseline principles of the animal rights.

- James September 5, 2009 12:34PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.