Patrick J Battuello

Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

In Defense of Animal Rights Extremism

In Activism, Philosophy on October 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

The Collins English Dictionary defines an extremist as “a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour.” At the least, not very flattering, but to some, the lunatic fringe. Usually, extremists of any persuasion are marginalized, garnering attention only when deemed dangerous. And so it goes with animal rights activists, or more specifically, those calling for the end of all animal exploitation. Here, the history of another great movement is instructive. In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (August 1963), Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed civil rights extremism:

“Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized. But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. …Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? — “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”

The animal rights position holds the following to be incontrovertible facts:

First, virtually all the ways that humans use other species – for entertainment, for fashion, for pets, for food, for service, for research – involve sentient beings, or those capable of suffering.

Second, suffering of some kind, be it physical or psychological, is practically inherent in the exploitation.

And third, none of these uses are necessary for human survival. On this, the first three – a day at the circus, an ostentatious flash of fur, surrogate companionship – need not be argued, and veganism has existed long enough to dispel the notion that animal protein is essential to good health. As to service, while enlisting German Shepherds as cops and soldiers may save some human life, mankind’s existence is hardly at stake.

It is the sixth use, experimentation, that because of the gravity involved, proves the most challenging for advocates. Government and some in the scientific community (though certainly not all: here, here, and here) have long declared that animal testing is a sort of Darwinian necessary evil in the war on human disease and to ensure product safety. Accordingly, hundreds of millions of animals are annually sacrificed, many after suffering painfully invasive procedures, in experiments that are often replaceable, redundant, sadistic, shocking, and unforgivable. When pressed as to why only animals are still used as non-consenting subjects, the sad and decidedly unenlightened response is because they are not us, which is exactly how human-on-human laboratory atrocities once were justified.

So, with science (and common sense) having established that the animals we routinely exploit are sentient and suffer in some way, and that these various uses do nothing to promote human progress (in fact, just the opposite), how can the animal rights core principle, that all exploitation is morally wrong, not be reached? Uncompromising, sure, but moderation here is untenable; there can be no middle ground where only some beings are spared or only certain forms of abuse are prohibited. Just as either all ethnic cleansing is wrong or none of it, just as either all human slavery is wrong or none of it, just as either all gender subjugation is wrong or none of it, so too is animal exploitation an all or nothing proposition. The Ringling elephant and Smithfield pig will not be liberated with half measures; they need extremism. Like Dr. King before us, we should wear this badge with pride.

Can You Hear the Squeals?

In Activism, Factory Farming, Pigs on July 31, 2011 at 2:43 am

Mercy For Animals (MFA) went undercover at Iowa Select Farms (the nation’s 4th largest producer) from April-June 2011 and found this…

Iowa Select issued a statement the day after the video’s release. Citing their “long-standing commitment to animal welfare,” they claim to have begun an investigation “into the portions of the video that show unacceptable animal handling.” They have also hired an “animal behavior and well-being researcher” from Iowa State “to provide additional consultation to deal with specific actions depicted in the video that do not reflect Iowa Select’s commitment to animal welfare.” That said, their senior staff veterinarian, Howard Hill, is “deeply troubled” by the inaction of the investigator, saying that even though Iowa Select bears “ultimate responsibility…video-taping abuse instead of reporting it is indefensible.”

The first part of the statement is standard damage control: First, assure that this is rare and unacceptable. Second, promise swift disciplinary action (including a conspicuous firing or two). And third, pledge ongoing husbandry improvements. This section should just be copied and circulated in CAFO circles, for it is that familiar. Hill’s censure, though, practically leaves one speechless. Imagine the arrogance in rebuking the MFA activist for not meeting his “ethical obligation” to stop (and report) the abuse when said abuse happened on the fine doctor’s watch. Howard Hill and Iowa Select are in no position to lecture on ethics. These undercover investigators display uncommon courage and restraint in striving for a greater good. They are the true animal advocates, not Veterinarian Hill.

This is well-traveled territory…

MFA
COK
HFA
HSUS

There exists an implied compact between agribusiness and government. The former, hellbent on keeping processing particulars from the public, has proposed Ag-Gag bills (to criminalize these investigations) in a handful of states (NY and Iowa included). The latter, through a gaping void in animal protection policy (livestock is not covered under the AWA; no regular welfare inspections, federal or state, of American farms) and woeful enforcement of anticruelty laws (arrests – usually resulting from these videos – rare, convictions rarer, misdemeanor-level fines and probations common), is protecting large financial interests (the meat industry expended $6.2 million on federal lobbying in 2008). And by consistently deferring to common industry practice, the judicial system ensures a virtual firewall against successful prosecution.

Phil Niles was the only person associated with NY’s Willet Dairy to be arrested, charged, and punished (small fine, no animal contact for one year) for this. And Billy Joe Gregg Jr. was held solely responsible for the recorded cruelty at Conklin Dairy in Ohio. He received a mere eight months and no animal contact for three years. Regarding Willet, the Cayuga County DA said: (The Post-Standard, 3/25/11) “In short, this team of industry experts found the condition of the animals to be well above industry standards for health and well-being. The experts indicated findings of a high level of care and animal husbandry being practiced by Willet Dairy.” If Willet is providing a “high level of care,” doesn’t this suggest systemic abuse, closely guarded and staunchly defended, on all factory farms? And is it any wonder why cynicism pervades the animal rights community?

Chef Tal’s Veganism

In Activism, Vegetarianism on July 30, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Rarely does one ascend to a status where one name suffices. Rarer, still, for a vegan chef (or any vegan for that matter). Feted by the likes of Oprah, Ellen DeGeneres, and Chrissie Hynde, Chef Tal (Ronnen) is there and was recently featured in an LA Times article on the flexitarian movement: “So many people tell me, ‘I could be a vegan if it weren’t for bacon,’ and I tell them, ‘Be a “vegan” who eats bacon.’” The writer adds that Ronnen said this “with a shrug.” A shrug.

Ronnen goes on to say, “Real militant vegans hate when I say that.” And from the Times: “He’s part of a new breed of vegans and vegetarians who are taking the movement back from those militants brandishing bumper stickers that admonish us not to eat anything with a face.” Sorry, but that is the message, at least for those who care about animals, and I hardly consider myself a militant. Militant is obsessing over obscure food dyes (and chastising those who don’t), not taking umbrage at the suggestion of occasional bacon bites. Let Chef Tal marginalize sugar and wine production, but not the very foundation of animal suffering. The goal should be to avoid the obvious, and nothing is more obvious than bacon. Maybe with Ronnen, though, a little context is in order.

In an interview with The Oregonian (9/7/10), Chef Tal said, “It’s really great to work with people like Oprah and Ellen and show people that you can have satisfying vegetarian meals once or twice a week and have a really wonderful impact on your health and the environment.” The LA Times says that he “went vegan for humanitarian and health reasons.” So, pig suffering is very likely not his priority. If the impetus is selfish (his health, mankind’s environment), then indulging the meat craving every now and then probably isn’t that big a deal. But to some of us, it is.

There is a clear difference between a vegan chef offering meat alongside mock meats and suggesting meat as an occasional guilty pleasure. The former is inclusive (mixed groups can dine together), which may lead to introduction and (hopefully) transition. The latter sends a decidedly other message. When perhaps the most famous vegan chef on the planet says “be a “vegan” who eats bacon,” he is providing cause for people to continue (or revert to) omnivorism. Some say that vegans/activists must be practical in attempting to change sensibilities. Fine, I get that. But the ultimate message should be unequivocal and consistent: Meat, no matter the source, involves cruelty and suffering. That is either wrong or it is not. If it is, then even a little once in awhile is unacceptable. There has to be a line, Mr. Ronnen.

Finally, we should explore a fundamental question: What is bacon? To start, it is not simply thin sheets of pig fat (try eating that in the raw). Salted, cured, smoked, and pan-fried (and lots of foods taste better fried), the finished product bears little resemblance to the crude material. There is a reason that humans are the only omnivorous species (though many believe we are innate herbivores) who treats their meat in this manner. Meat for human consumption is a concocted taste, and who better to concoct than a classically trained chef? Since he does, and with great fanfare, he knows how good meat replacements are (the Gardein line is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing). And that’s what makes his comment so objectionable.

The Vegan Illusion?

In Activism, Vegetarianism on July 23, 2011 at 3:17 pm

The following picture is making the internet rounds…

While appearing to confront vegans with a sobering and inconvenient reality, the illustrator’s conclusion, in truth, is grossly misleading. Beyond even that, it quite possibly is the most fatuous argument against veganism this side of sentient plants (plucking plants causes pain). Outwardly, it suggests that genuine veganism is unattainable. More shameful, however, is the not-so-subtle implication that vegans are delusional in believing that their lifestyle makes any difference.

But facts, as the great John Adams once said, are stubborn things, and this is an inescapable one: If humans were to cease consuming beef and dairy tomorrow, the domesticated cow would vanish from the planet. While a plausible argument could be made that leather is a stand-alone product, the remaining uses are afterthoughts that would disappear along with the bovines. In other words, capitalism, in maximizing profits and covering costs, dictates that no (or very little) part of the body be wasted. But if not for meat, the synthetic alternatives to all 80 byproducts would be (and some are now) far less expensive.

The picture clearly intends to make vegans feel powerless. Reasonable people should see this as the easily refutable propaganda that it is. While reading ingredient lists is second nature to most seasoned vegans, eschewing all animal products (as the illustration accurately conveys) is virtually impossible. But the goal, in a truth that occasionally escapes even some vegans (the vegan police), is not personal purity. The meat, dairy, and egg industries would collapse upon themselves without demand for meat, dairy, and eggs. So boycotting those products would engender the noble end that all ethical vegans seek: the elimination of the livestock animal.

Pictures like the above are mere smokescreens designed to confuse and paralyze (creating a why bother apathy) a well-meaning public. In the end, veganism is a philosophy, not some self-indulgent badge of honor; a philosophy that is fairly simple and direct and cannot be derailed by sad attempts at diversion.

Suffolk County Animal Abuser Registry

In Activism, Law on July 23, 2011 at 10:36 am

Rutgers law professor Gary Francione believes that the animal rights position should (must) translate to one word: veganism. So, in Professor Francione’s estimation, it is irrational, even hypocritical, to decry pet abuse or protest the circus while continuing to eat meat (cheese, eggs). Although vegan myself, I find his philosophy at times marginalizes; in defending animals, only vegans need apply.

Suffolk County on Long Island has enacted the nation’s first animal abuser registry. All persons over 18 convicted of animal cruelty will need to register (address and photo required) with the Suffolk County SPCA. The program will be funded by the abusers themselves (through a $50 fee), and they will remain in the system for five years. Seems an obvious move, does it not? But Francione sees praise for the initiative as hollow backslapping. He often criticizes the single-issue campaigns of large animal advocacy organizations (or modern welfarists) as mere marketing tools directed at mainstream (larger donor pool) animal lovers.

Noting that the law was inspired by a Selden woman who forced her children to watch their pets being tortured and killed (then buried in the backyard), Francione writes: “By defining ‘animal abuse’ as the rare, pathological behavior that runs afoul of the anticruelty laws–and that probably accounts for less than one millionth of one percent of animal use–we leave alone what is considered ‘normal.’”

The law (and the typical outrage over pet abuse stories) illustrates Professor Francione’s moral schizophrenia: “But how is what she did really any different from what the rest of everyone else does? Most of us eat animal products and the animals from which those products were made were tortured every bit as much as the kittens and dogs in the Long Island case. But she’s a criminal and the rest of us, who support the registry and similar gimmicks, are ‘compassionate.’ Go figure.”

I believe, however, that one can promote individual remedies like the registry while simultaneously trumpeting the larger cause (that is, conveying the simple truth that a pig is a dog). Vegans comprise less than 2% of the population, so practicality is in order. It would be wrong to deny some animals (granted, a small minority) an available protective tool out of a rigid (and decidedly unrealistic) adherence to all-or-nothing.

Professor Francione believes that larger cages (pens) will result in greater egg and meat consumption; in other words, welfare reforms that alleviate guilt among consumers are counterproductive in the long term. But no one, not even the esteemed professor, can plausibly argue that requiring abusers to register will engender more pet cruelty. The registry, like its sex offender predecessor, will facilitate vigilance among shelters, adoption groups, law enforcement, and neighbors. If one dog is saved from a violent crime, then it will have been worth it. At the very least, it is a far cry from the “completely meaningless gesture” that Francione believes it to be.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.