Animal Rights Movement Must Avoid Single Issue Campaigns
Single-issue campaigns convey the false impression that some forms of exploitation are worse than other forms of exploitation. The anti-fur campaign is the prime example. There is no morally significant distinction between or among fur and leather and wool and silk.
All SI campaigns are open to the same criticism. A campaign that targets circuses, or one that targets circuses that use wild animals but not domesticated animals, sends the message that other forms of animal "entertainment" are okay. If a circus comes to town and you want to protest that event, at least be sure 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.
That is, deliver a vegan message in that context and it will help to mitigate (although not eliminate completely) the problems inherent in single-issue campaigns. Abolitionist veganism is not, as some incoherently suggest, a single-issue campaign; as I have developed that notion, is the rejection all consumption and use of sentient nonhumans for *any* purpose.
A campaign that boycotts a fast-food chain until it gasses chickens and then calls off the boycott when gassing is implemented sends the wrong message. A campaign that boycotts a state as long as wolves are shot from an airplane and then calls off the boycott when aerial shooting stops sends the wrong message.
As Victor Schonfeld, maker of the influential "The Animals Film" in 1982, stated recently on the BBC: the movement needs principles of crystal clarity. These single issue campaigns do nothing but confuse the public.
You RT a post: "If we wait until everyone is vegan to defend a fox, we'll have no foxes left to defend! How on Earth is that vegan?"
But this is the classic new welfarist line: we are not going to achieve veganism overnight so we have to pursue welfare reform and/or single-issue campaigns in the meantime. That is the SAME line taken by PETA, HSUS, and every other new welfarist group. And it is subject to the simple observation: nothing is going to change *until* veganism becomes more widely accepted because as long as animal use is the default position, no significant or sustained progress can or will be made on single issues. The history of animal welfare reform bears this out.
I should add that if anyone thinks that the Weir matter is going to save a single fox, they are mistaken. And if anyone thinks that a fox is worth more morally than the cow used to make Weir's skates, I disagree.
The Weir episode is really no different from someone at a dinner party at which all sorts of animal products have been served announcing after s/he ate the steak and eggs and cheese that s/he is not eating the ice cream for reasons having nothing to do with the ethical aspects of ice cream. To call that a "victory" is to invite an inquiry into what, exactly, a "failure" might look like.
I have expressed my views in reasoned and respectful ways. I am sorry that certain people are choosing to attack me personally. But I learned long ago that when welfarists have nothing of substance to say, they just call you names. Oh, well.
OV Social
Professor Francione:
I am a law student focusing my studies in Animal Law with the goal of helping to end the property status and exploitation of animals (yes, I embraced the most important form of activism, veganism , 15 years ago and have been doing public vegan education activism for a few years). I understand the legal road to ending the property status of animals will not be an easy one.
First, regarding single issue campaigns. I have read your blogs, etc. and see you say:
“An example of a campaign that would fit this description: The prohibition of all animal use in circuses for the reason that it is immoral and cannot be justified irrespective of economic benefit. Advocates should be clear that the uses of animals for other forms of entertainment or other purposes, including for food , are similarly objectionable.”
-and-
“Another example of a campaign that would fit the description: A prohibition on the use of any animal for a particular sort of experiment coupled with a clear demand for the abolition of all vivisection.”
I understand that you see vegan education as the most effective and that you don’t advocate single issue campaigns (that meet your criteria) “as I strongly favor of vegan/abolitionist education.” Other than not feeling it is as effective as vegan education and you do not favor it as much, how do you feel about an activist standing at a circus with an abolitionist message sign saying, “Ban the circus. Animals are not for your entertainment” one day and standing outside the animal testing facility the next with an abolitionist sign reading, “Ban animal testing. Animals are not for humans to test on” (and doing vegan education the next; i.e. these protests /campaigns are just part of the strategy). I see this as educating people at the points of exploitation with an abolitionist message and feel the public would not be confused by this. As you mention in a blog, many activists (myself included) have made groundbreaking connections with people at these types of events that has introduced them to the abolitionist argument and got them to begin thinking about their part in animal exploitation and the intrinsic rights of animals (much as vegan education does).
Second, interestingly enough, I have recently offered suggestions of single issue campaigns, including the circus and testing facility example that you mention, that could be considered abolitionist (as they meet your criteria) on some recent blogs/ facebook pages (pages where people mainly quote you and link to your webpage). For these suggestions, I was treated condescendingly and rudely by the bloggers/page owners. I would like your comments on approach to others, specifically: regarding nonviolence and vegan abolition education approach. I am concerned of how we, as a movement, are going to educate people when we don’t treat them (or each other!) in a respectful, tactful, and compassionate way. Related to this, recently a “substitute letter” to the ice-skater Weir was circulated which went into great lengths about how morally superior it is to be an abolitionist vegan and included many "I want you to..."s, talked about legal personhood for non-humans, and suggested the skater to go home and throw out most of their clothes and products (that were animal derived). In my experience, this approach to someone who has not thought much of animal exploitation before (the majority of the public) helps isolate conscientious vegans in the public eye as “fanatical” and “holier than thou.” While I am certainly not against telling people I think ending animal exploitation is the right thing to do, I think how we approach non-vegans and non-abolitionists is extremely important and needs to be done well. Your thoughts?
Hi there
I was wondering if you are the MarkV who started their comment on two of my colleagues' posts with the following:
"....No single-issue campaigns. Sorry circus animals , sorry rodeo animals, sorry horses (carriages, races), sorry local animal- testing animals, sorry fur -trapped animals, sorry wild animals whose killing by gov. I fight, etc., etc. I will not be protesting or campaigning for you anymore...."
Just want to make sure. Because if so, I believe I may have been someone who initially reacted in an irritated manner to that comment (posted twice, identically, on both sites from what I saw). I was having a bad day, which is no excuse because it doesn't help the nonhumans we are trying to help, and I realized I was giving into my frustration, and I believe I apologized to the Mark involved for my tone and re-phrased.
So, if it was you, Mark (and forgive me if it wasn't) then why on earth did you start your comment with something that basically implies that we don't give a damn about any of the animals you mentioned and want to leave them to their fate and that by doing vegan education we are not campaigning for them? Excuse me but if you read your opening lines you will see that is the message you very clearly sent. It gets old to be told this nonsense by people who have obviously never read a word of abolitionist theory.
Then it turns out that you have read abolitionist theory, support abolition, and are in fact in agreement with the criteria of single issue in that context as is outlined by Professor Francione in his abolitionist theory, and therefore, what on earth prompted you to react in the way you reacted? Now, I still fully agree that hands down, vegan education is the most effective and I at least aim to spend all my advocacy time advocating for veganism based on that, and I personally avoid single issue, but that is beside the point.
Why, firstly would you post such a negative and misleading comment, and why even take exception to the articles you made the comments on, which were articles written about single issue campaigns that clearly did not subscribe to criteria you have quoted above, and therefore should not worry you or as they are not directed at the kind of single issue campaigning you claim to be doing? After all the furor I was perplexed when you finally claimed that you are doing the kinds of things that were not objected to in the article anyway! I was like, so then, what was the point of that comment?
I honestly cannot for the life of me see the need for any of this to have happened in the first place, given your admission that you are doing the kind of advocacy that was not even being outright objected to in the articles!
If you don't want to cause frustration amongst abolitionists, (and like I said, I acknowledge it is our responsibility to not put our frustration first, and I usually don't give in to it, but I am only human, and oftentimes people don't read a word of Francione then come on and say things like "you want all the circus animals to suffer!" etc etc) then maybe, you should be a little clearer on where you stand right from the start and avoid portraying yourself in your opening statement as someone who hasn't read or understand a word of abolitonist theory.
Because—and obviously I am not the only one who got this impression—that is the way you came across.
Please excuse me if I have the wrong Mark, but you are making disparaging remarks about me as a person on another opposing views thread (were you posted almost an exact copy paste of this comment you have posted here) claiming that I am very rude and all kinds of horrible things, and I am very surprised about it and trying to get to the bottom of it. There are a lot of coincidences that seem to point to you being the same person, I would appreciate some clarification, especially in light of your extremely negative remarks about me.
Thanks!
Elizabeth:
My name is Mark Jordan. I posted a question for Professor Francione on another Opposing Views site. There was apparently a website glitch and it got posted under “Markjohn316” (someone else). Markjohn316 denied asking my question (because he did not). I notified Opposing Views of this glitch and they eventually shut down the thread for a long time to fix it. It now seems to be back up with the glitches removed. Michael McNulty from OV is who was working on the glitch. No Cloak & Dagger. Nothing to hide. Just website glitch.
Because you have asked for it, your post to me follows. Notice the SHOUTING, the condescension, and rudeness (to me and anyone else that might disagree with Professor Francione). Also of interest is the assumption that if I (we) had spent more time in the works of Francione, I (we) would not disagree and thereby must not have done this (Many of us that have been treated thusly have indeed read his books, blogs, etc. and still manage to reach independent conclusions).
~~~~
Elizabeth Collins commented on X link:
"Goodness sakes. Wait, you missed some out - whale hunting , dolphin slaughter, sheep shearing, zoos , canned big cat hunts, etc etc etc. Veganism covers ALL OF THOSE THINGS. It is a mega campaign. No need to pick and choose. We need to educate people that we have no right to USE animals period, for anything, no matter what use it is, all use is wrong . That means veganism and veganism covers everything. Get it now?
We need more vegans . Urgently. If anyone paid attention, and actually READ Gary Francione 's work , or listened to him speak, they would see that he acknowledges that once the paradigm starts to shift, and we have more people who take animal rights (ALL ANIMALS) seriously and go vegan , then maybe (maybe - we are not there yet!) we can actually make some changes that DO count, get some legislature, further down the line that actually does mean meaningful change . But first we have to shift the paradigm. And that is not being done.
And also, if anyone paid attention, they would have seen or heard that Professor Francione has stated before that IF you just have to do a single issue campaign, you are just compelled to do it, then it should be very clearly under the umbrella that all animal use is wrong, and this campaign is part - clearly and unequivically part - of a broader campaign to abolish all animal use. He mentions that in this interview with Adam Kochanowicz:
http://www.facebook.com/l/d226e ; www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO8NXatlQhc
If you LISTEN to him in this interview you will see that that is directed only to those who insist on doing single issue campaigns, even though he says, and I agree with them, that vegan education is the best thing to do to help ALL animals and single issue campaigns are not a good idea for very good reasons. Veganism covers everything. It is a mega campaign. I don't understand why people are not getting this."
~~~
I came on here to ask Professor Francione for some of his thoughts and his ideas. He responded, “I fully agree that we ought always to be civil in our discourse with everyone, including other animal advocates.” I doubt your discourse above meets his civility standard. As this OV thread above shows, I only spoke of you after you spoke of me (in response to a question I asked of Francione). Therefore, to say I came on here with you in mind is melodrama not supported by the facts. I came on here with many animal activists in mind that I feel are doing a disservice to animals through their disrespectful bashing of other activists. Good luck in your activism.
Also, you did not respond to my observations made above just now about the way you started your comment with an indication that we "don't care about circus animals " etc - which was very unnecessary and provocative, not good or respectful communication on your part in my opinion, and is certainly not indicative of anyone who has read anything on abolition. In fact as an advocate for abolition, as you claim to be, I would be sure you have encountered such tiresome unfounded accusations yourself! Because we do, over and over and over again, mostly by proponents of welfare . So, again, forgive me for jumping to a conclusion, but it was due to the nature of your opening statement, and with all due respect, as I have indicated in my comment above, I suggest you take that into consideration next time too. It is only friendly advice , from one advocate to another, please don't take it out of context.
You don't address my concerns about that still, and I think, in all fairness, you should.
And if you are basing all the disparaging remarks on my character as a person because I responded to you provocation that we are uncaring about circus animals etc ("sorry circus animals") on that fateful day on facebook , because I said things like "Oh for goodness sakes" and "do you get it now?" and "I don't understand why people are not getting this" then:
1. I already gave you an idea on where that frustration (albeit not excused) came from because of the provocative and unfair way you started your comment (sorry circus animals etc) and
2. I apologized and rephrased and
3. I still suggest that you are way way overreacting, especially given the nature of all my comments to you since then, including here on Opposing Views and definitely especially given the way you have conducted yourself in your comments towards me.
Alll I can do is take this as an extremely unpleasant lesson learned, and I wish YOU the best in YOUR advocacy too.
Thanks
31 January at 15:45
Elizabeth Collins
Elizabeth Collins
Yes I did rephrase my comment because the tone didn't represent who I am, I gave into my frustration and that is something I am constantly criticizing others for because it doesn't help nonhumans, and this is all about them, not me and my emotions. I hope you can put that aside, with forgiveness, and re-read
As I explained to you on that thread, and you acknowledged my explanation there: I was not being provocative- I was not saying that vegan education activists (like myself) do not care about those animals , I was saying that if I adhered to this single-issue directive I would not be protesting or campaigning for their cause directly. As I have said on these threads: I think protesting and campaigning at the points of exploitation is important, can be abolitionist (as Francione has said also, but maybe has retracted, but that is neither here nor there), and does not necessarily confuse the public.
No personal anger being held, just concern for the animals and the animal advocacy community. As the thread shows, I only spoke to you, and about you, after you spoke to me and about me.
Anyways, Thanks for your vegan education efforts. Best of luck.
Campaigns of the sort launched against Weir constitute one of the most foolish and most detrimental activities of animal welfarists. The full dimension of their (a) foolishness and (b) detrimental effect is revealed in light of the fact that
(a) it is left to the person who has been made the target of an anti- fur campaign, someone who is not an animal advocate, to correctly state that there is no morally relevant difference between fur on the one hand, and leather, on the other (as there is no morally relevant difference between fur and any other animal product);
(b) those from whom Weir got ''hate mail and death threats'' are referred to in the newspaper report as '' animal rights activists''. This perception is only suited, as Francione writes in his blog entry, ''A Victory? For Whom?'' to ''reinforce( ) the characterization of 'animal people' as crazies who threaten people into submission.''
When an animal advocacy group is involved, as is in the given case Friends of Animals, a group which issued an Open Letter to Weir intending to get him not to wear fur, the above mentioned foolishness in terms of failing to educate the public about why we should not consume, wear, or otherwise use any animal product proves quite clever in terms of self-promotion by eliciting a) media attention and b) donations (whereby a serves the purpose of furthering b).
A very effective way of achieving both is for an animal group to focus on a celebrity and target her or him for a practice of animal exploitation that is likely to generate the least sympathy in public, simply because the majority of people don't engage in it .Like wearing fur. Or hunting . Or eating foie gras. The targeted person is presented as the evildoer which makes those who don't wear fur, hunt, or eat foie gras feel much better about their consuming, wearing, and using other animal products. Since everybody wants to keep feeling good about it, people are strongly inclined to support anything that suits the purpose of achieving that, much to the animal groups', not to the animals ', benefit. The former are businesses, sponsered by donatons, concerned primarily with self-preservation by means of exploiting exploitation, to borrow the title of one of Francione's recent blog essays.
I advocate the right of every sentient being, human or nonhuman, not to be treated as a thing, a resource, someone's property, no matter how cruel or allegedly ''humane'' that treatment is, and I believe that this advocacy requires being opposed to violence and non-violently educating people about veganism , why, that is, we should stop using any animal for any human purpose.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that animal right campaigners should avoid single issue campaigns. We campaign against the killing of grey squirrels in the UK. If we took a generalist view we would not be able to target the killing organisations and the media as effectively as we do. If we said we opposed everything we'd get nowhere.
Please read our website www.grey-squirrel.org.uk and in particular download the pdf files "Victimising Grey Squirrels" and "Save a life - Feed a grey" which are on the homepage.
Are you a vegan ?
No, I'm not a vegan .
I don't oppose conventional farming provided the animals are well cared for prior to their slaughter and slaughtered humanely and I don't believe humans will ever stop eating meat , fish etc.
The reason I oppose the killing of grey squirrels in the UK is that it's a form of protectionism to "protect" red squirrels so that the latter can be exploited for tourism.
I also believe that wildlife, as opposed to farmed animals, are parallel populations to our own and not "owned" by us, They should be left to live out their lives without persecution.
It is unavoidable that we all, including vegand, kill wildlife in one form or another in the course of out daily lives but there is a difference between that and making a consious decision to deliberately kill.
The article by Prof. Francione is concerning whether or not single-issue campaigns are useful within the context of fighting for the rights of all nonhuman animals (i.e. not just squirrels or animals considered "wildlife"). The status quo is such that all nonhuman animals are deemed property and are thus considered ours to exploit for our own pleasure.
In your initial answer, you responded to Prof. Francione by stating that you disagree that animal rights advocates should avoid single-issue campaigns (e.g. such are your own cause), yet, from your response to me, you've explained that you believe that only some types of animals have the right not to be treated as property (i.e. "wildlife") while others (i.e. "farm animals") do not have this right.
You've pretty much just illustrated why single-issue campaigns (e.g. opposing the killing of grey squirrels) aren't really effective tools for anyone who takes the interests of all animals seriously and wants to educate others about ending their exploitation.