I knew Joan Dunayer had many fans, as I often heard her works recommended on websites, Facebook and Twitter. My “Books to Read” list is very long and, while her books were on the list, they did not make it to the top until I finally received a review copy of the subject book. As soon as I began reading her excellent work, I understood why her fans wanted everyone to read her books. Speciesism is so easy to absorb, filled with fascinating information about other animals, and so accessible to most all readers that it should be one every activist as well as every non-vegan would read at some point.

Old Speciesists, New Speciesists, and Anti-Speciesist Philosophies

Ms. Dunayer first defines the term speciesism and looks at its various manifestations. At the root is the attitude of human supremacy and the denial of the individual rights or respect for the individual beings that are not human. Old Speciesism, those who advocate for human supremacy, is separated from New Speciesism, wherein some advocates are proposing rights for only select animals, usually those more similar to humans. What Dunayer advocates, however, is much more. She is asking for moral consideration for all sentient individuals. She advocates for the invertebrates, the crustaceans, the birds, the mammals, without prejudice, and suggests that if we err, it should be on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

Joan Dunayer Asks for a New Paradigm for Animals

Dunayer asks for abolitionist bans, boycotts, vegan advocacy, rights advocacy and campaigns against speciesism. Speciesists often consider other animals only as categories (gorillas, birds, fish) while seeing only humans as individuals. ”To varying degrees, all animal species overlap physically and mentally. At the same time, each animal is unique.” * Anyone familiar with her other book, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation, is aware of the signifcant contribution Ms. Dunayer has made towards heightening awareness of speciesism in language.  Her background in literature, education, and psychology has made her well-suited for writing this sensitive and respectful book. Strongly recommended.

*page 12

As someone relatively new to the Animal Rights movement, I am always trying to absorb as much information as I can. I am fortunate to have access to a wide number of books due to my reviews, but find that some books I wish to read are not as likely to be sent my way. The local libraries are not well stocked with such literature, leaving my options for affordable sourcing rather limited. Online resources are plentiful, and with forums, podcasts, and chats, there is a lot of information free of any charge. Of course, the trick is to find valid information, because there is also a lot of misinformation out there, too.

I remember receiving something in my email last year about an interview with Dan Cudahy on a site called Animal Rights Zone, or ARZone.  This type of site was rather new to me, but I wanted to hear what Dan had to say. I knew he was part of the abolitionist movement, and frequently linked to his articles in my own blog. Following in short order were other interesting folks, including Vincent Guihan and Jo Charlebois, Gary Francione, Roger Yates,  and others with sometimes divergent perspectives.  I was able to ask questions of such noted people as Ric O’Barry of The Cove and Sea Shepherd Captain Paul Watson. They also profile the occasional grassroots activist, such as my good friend and technical advisor, Jordan Wyatt of Invercargill Vegan Society (and podcast Coexisting With Nonhuman Animals), an end-of-the-world one-man abolitionist incursion.  A few of the guests have been quite controversial, including those with very different viewpoints than my own, such people as Bruce Friedrich of PeTA, Matt Ball of Vegan Outreach, transhumanist David Pearce, or former vivisectionist Colin Blakemore.  Even the administrators have a wide range of views, with the shared commonality of being abolitionist vegans. Transcripts following chats are available for anyone who cares to further the dialogue and often the guests will return to answer questions, too.

The past few weeks on ARZone have been of particular note, with Tom Regan’s interview being published, and a workshop related to that interview taking place on Saturday, May 22, 2011. For any of you who know nothing of him, he is a one-time butcher who became a leading proponent of Animal Rights and has written extensively on the subject. He reports that if he could become an animal rights activist, anyone can. Of course, Tom Regan is far from your garden variety ARA, he has been one of the prominent voices in the movement for decades. His humility and quest for justice have stood the test of time. For further information, check out his interview or read the workshop transcripts on ARZone. If time permits,  read some of his many books on the subject.

Recently, on a vegan forum, I commented on the use of the term “vegetarian”  or “veg*n” rather than “vegan” while promoting animal rights.  It seemed to unleash a storm of criticism and ad hominem attacks: “Someone is VERY NEW….,”  ”so fundamentalist in nature,”  ”is there ANY evidence base whatsoever…? ”  My comment was in response to the posting of a Huffington Post article by Bruce Friederich, Vice President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as well as a suggestion to develop the inclusive “veg*n” culture on the same forum.  Mr. Friederich has stated before that he no longer advocates in vegan tee shirts, because people respond better to the vegetarian message. That may be, but it is not a message that will help animals. In fact, it may even create more suffering for the animals. How can an animal advocate promote the dairy industry?  I think of the abuse of babies, little newborn calves; and mothers who are forced into servitude of being milk machines, with distended udders, infected and dragging the ground.  Then there are all those newborn chicks ground alive in massive machines because they cannot lay eggs.  THAT is something for animal advocates to support?

The message Mr. Friederich was giving was that it is indefensible to eat meat. Unfortunately, his last  line reads,

Put another way: If we believe that people should try to protect the environment, OR we believe that we should try not to cause people to starve OR we oppose cruelty to animals, the only ethical diet is a vegetarian one.

Wrong. This following many salient points in Friederich’s article is so disappointing.  Why is there such a great fear of the word “veganism?”  It is a simple word, much more simple and clear than “vegetarianism.”  There is so much ambiguity in the term vegetarian that it leaves people thinking giving up meat for dairy products will somehow be less cruel. Even if one is focusing solely on the dietary aspects of veganism, then why not support incremental veganism? At least doing so would leave a clear impression in the minds of the audience that veganism is the goal, not vegetarianism.

Mr. Friederich has another contradiction or two on his hands. It is difficult to be accepted as someone who values animal life while working for an organization that kills a higher proportion of animals in their “shelter” than most other shelters. It is also an organization that owns stock and profits from animal agriculture, gives awards to slaughter house designers, and uses some questionable tactics which diminishes the level of dialogue regarding the significance of animal rights.  Again, so disappointing. One young animal rights advocate, Beckah Sheeler, recently posted on the site Animal Writes an article titled, PETA: A Hurdle for Vegan Advocacy:

What we are faced with is the split between abolitionists and welfarists, and this will always exist; however, (as cliche the saying as it may be) with the amount of power Peta has, comes a great amount of responsibility, meaning the lives and welfare of animals, the planet, and the indirect meals able to be fed to the hungry due to this lifestyle, are resting in its hands. Bruce Friedrich, VP of Peta, also has stated in a recent post that being an absolutist is the worst way to attract people to this cause. The members of Peta should, of course, not give up their strong convictions of remaining not only meat free, but egg and dairy free, but being that Peta is so big, I believe that it is the organization’s responsibility, with all of its money, resources, and recognition, to advocate in such a way that helps the most amount of animals being that this is its perceived cause.

Ms. Sheeler then goes on to support widening the appeal rather than clarifying the message that PETA spreads.  However, Dan Cudahy, on his blog Unpopular Vegan Essays, reports on the failure of such tactics that are contradictory at the root (from the article PETA: A Corporate Tangle of Contradictions):

PETA’s contradictions in philosophy, rhetoric, and activities – which have led to profound public confusion and fortification of the utilitarian-welfarist status quo that has been in existence since Jeremy Bentham – have been a barrier to progress in advancing animal rights, and will continue to be a barrier as long as they continue as an animal welfare organization.

For a clear look at the problematic nature of the confusion in such welfarist rhetoric, Professor Gary Francione states in a post on his blog, Animal Rights: The Abolionist Approach (Some Comments on Vegetarianism as a Gateway to Veganism):

It is clear: if you explain that there is no distinction between flesh and other animal products and why we should go vegan, and the person with whom you are talking cares about the issue, she will either (1) go vegan immediately; or (2) go vegan in stages; or (3) not go vegan and adopt some version of vegetarianism (or “happy” meat/product consumption). But she will at least understand that veganism is the aspiration toward which to work. She will understand that the line between flesh and other products is entirely arbitrary. If you maintain that going vegetarian is morally meaningful and that there is a distinction between flesh and other animal products, then you increase the chances that her progress toward veganism will be impeded.

In other words, you do not need to advocate vegetarianism. It is completely unnecessary, morally meaningless, and, as a practical matter, it impedes transition to veganism.

While I appreciate the sincere motives of individuals like Mr. Friederich and do not challenge them, it does seem important to continue looking at the tactics of the animal rights movement. This is very different than disparaging individuals.  I fully admit to many shortcomings and work on them; I have my own blind spots. Assuming that all animal advocates sincerely want what is in the best interest of nonhuman animals rather than promotion of their individual animal organizations, then looking critically at tactics and contradictions that may become barriers (Dan Cudahy) or hurdles (Beckah Sheeler) or impediments (Gary Francione) would seem a positive way of helping advocates learn to help animals achieve true rights as living, feeling beings. While listening to a podcast today, I heard someone interrupt a speaker discussing vegetarianism and interject “a lacto-ovo vegetarian — that is pretty much the same thing as a vegan.”  No, no, no.

Another way of stating this was posted by Tim Gier in an article titled, Is Half A Loaf Better Than None?

If you do intentionally participate in the subjugation of nonhuman animals, it does not matter that your participation is infrequent, or irregular, or occasional. Whenever you eat the flesh of a nonhuman animal, a life is ended for your pleasure, and for nothing else. The same is true whenever you wear the skin of another as clothing, or you patronize the zoos and circuses that cage others for life, or you support the medical, scientific or commercial experimentation on others as well.  Cutting back on those things, while better than not, still amounts to participating in them. There is no “half loaf.”

By spreading vegetarian education rather than vegan education, we collaborate in the subjugation (however unintentionally) of nonhuman animals.  The baseline is veganism. The fact that it is not immediately appealing for 100% of all people everywhere is not the point.  Veganism is the goal. It can be incrementally achieved, but it remains the goal. To ask for anything less, anything with wider appeal, anything that appears to be a more popular message, is to sell out the rights of animals. Want to make veganism more popular? Start by talking about it.

Recently, I have become very disappointed in progressive media.  It would seem that when it comes to animal rights, things are not all that progressive.

Huffington Post Misses the Irony in Recent Post by Jamie Lee Curtis

Huffington Post recently published an article by Jamie Lee Curtis, lamenting the Conklin Dairy Abuse revealed by undercover videos.  We now know there will be no cruelty charges for the owner of the dairy (see linked article by Angel Flinn), no matter how distressing the videos.  Where there is demand, the brutality continues.  How does Ms. Curtis think that the very product she touts, yogurt, is created? By raping the cows with artificial insemination, stealing the baby calf from his or her mother, and then stealing the mother’s secretions from her, secretions made for the survival of her baby, not for adult humans. I always find those yogurt commercials to be interesting.  They suggest their brand of yogurt will help people with digestive problems, the very problems that come from eating a highly processed, animal-based diet. The solution? Another highly processed, animal-based product of course! Perhaps Ms. Curtis has never considered the cost for other beings of the products she sells. But when she wrote that article, obviously distressed at seeing animals treated as objects, devoid of any consideration for their personhood, she missed an important connection between what she does for a living and the act of living for other beings. And Huff Post missed a chance to post an article based on the stark and horrendous reality of the more than sixty billion land animals that perish for the pleasure of human appetite each year.

Mother Jones Appears to Have Lost the “Fearless” in Their Journalism

Even more egregious, Mother Jones (July/August 2010) published an article by Kiera Butler, a “lifelong vegetarian,” who broke her no-meat stance to dine on “grass-fed beef” (an interesting term denoting how devoid of acknowledgement of animal personhood our thinking is — cows eat, not beef; beef is a dead animal.)  She shared that it was delicious and she felt satisfied.  In the article, Get Behind Me, Seitan, Ms. Butler reports that the “vegetarian-equals-green argument” is not so cut and dried.  She then proceeds to offer a comparison between highly processed fake meat and grass fed animal flesh. She notes that her Berkeley, California crowd is really moving towards eating more meat, not less, and she seems to move along with them. One wonders why she ever became vegetarian; she did not mention any moral concerns, health concerns, certainly no consideration for the impact on the animals themselves, no discussion of violence or cruelty.  This was all about the trend and “local buzz.”  It seems preying on baby animals is all the rage these days.

Touting the “great caloric bargains” of things like fish, there is no mention of the toxins that accumulate the higher you go up the food chain. There is no mention of the dying oceans, respect for nature, or a moral baseline; there is plenty of talk about crab feeds and pig roasts.  There is discussion of hexane, used to remove soybean oil and keep soyburgers low in fat, a registered air pollutant and suspected neurotoxin.  Ms. Kiera reports that with a processed soyburger, there are numerous ingredients but with grass-fed beef there is only one, making it somehow purer. This defies everything we know about the accumulation of pesticides and other toxins as one moves up the foodchain, making it more and more dangerous to eat other  beings. There is no discussion of the impossibility of providing enough grazing land for the way the world now consumes animals. And worst of all, there is no discussion of the animals themselves, discussed solely as a commodity for humans throughout the entire article.

The progressive media needs to become truly progressive in the arena of animal rights and veganism. A start would be to post the work of one of the really good vegan advocates who are talented writers — Gary Francione, Roger Yates, Dan Cudahy, Angel Flinn, Tim Gier, Nathan Schneider, Jeff Perz, Mylène Oullet, and many, many others.  They could select someone to write who actually has a philosophical stance that does not move with the crowd, and leaves the “fearless” in their ability to stand alone when necessary, to actually take a position based on something beside their own health, coolness or gustatory delight.  It is  much easier to be oh-so-flexible when dining out, selling out the suffering of animals at every turn, and keeping in lockstep with mainstream thinking. This is progressive? NOT!

The article in Mother Jones did:

• present some of the problems with highly processed foods
• discussed some of the problems with unnatural methods of feeding animals that result in disease
• highlighted that Great Plains pastureland stores 54% more CO2 per acre than cropland

The article failed to:

• mention the many ways to eat a vegan diet that provides plenty of protein and keeps you fully satisfied
• investigate the consequences should the nation move towards grass fed animals
• mention the high levels of toxins in flesh products
• look at the fact that a vegetarian diet may not offer any moral, environmental, or welfare benefits over an omnivorous diet
• mention anything about the lives of animals as living, feeling beings
• mention the correlation between animal slaughter and violence in society
• even consider a whole foods vegan diet
• address the false dichotomy presented: there are infinite choices besides eat animals and eating fake meat.

In the end, Ms. Kiera decides to eat mostly plants, but with an occasional “indulgence.” Most vegetarians and vegans would not consider eating meat an indulgence; they would find it disgusting and nauseating. The callous disregard for the various ways these decisions impacts other living beings, the environment, or public health seems out of sync with the purpose of magazines like Mother Jones. The complete lack of any consideration for social justice towards animals, human or non-human, is a glaring omission.

Other articles online at Mother Jones include one about a “kinder, gentler, more convenient abattoir,” a man who kills animals six days a week. This sounds like ancient history, not “fearless journalism.”  Buying into the humane slaughter myth, the happy meat myth, and misrepresenting the positive aspects of healthy vegan cuisine seems more like something one would hear on Rush Limbaugh. Et tu, Mother Jones?

When I first learned that the products of the dairy industry resulted in endless suffering and animal death, I went from vegetarian to vegan and began to learn all that I could about what was happening to animals. I began listening to podcasts all day long as I worked and I learned a lot during that time. I listened to Colleen Patrick Goudreau of Compassionate Cooks, Dino Sarma of Alternative Vegan, the folks on Vegan Radio and Bob and Jenna Torres of Vegan Freaks. After that, I read and listened to anything I could get my hands on. Meanwhile, I was learning that some of the animal protection organizations to which I had sent money in the past were not helping animals the way I always assumed they had.  In fact, some of them were making things much worse, profiting from animal abuse by owning stock in some of the worst animal abuse industries and promoting the status quo by asking for regulation of the existing structure of domination and abuse rather than trying to abolish it. Some were participating in sexist, violent campaigns. Some were promoting flexitarian or vegetarian campaigns rather than veganism.  At the same time, I was getting an education online via some abolitionists, including Gary Francione. I was also becoming the object of some very snarky individuals and got caught in the crossfire between abolitionists and welfarists on more than one occasion. Good grief!  Then I started to really catch it; I was called divisive and told that I wasn’t  DOING anything for animals.  Those who believed in ending animal abuse by tackling one problem at a time saw those of us who wanted to end the domination of animals altogether as nothing but TROUBLE!

~~~~~~

Opposing Theories or Personal Attacks?

I was shocked and disturbed to see the personal attacks on people in the movement, in particular Gary Francione. Rather than debating him, or challenging the abolitionist ideas, there is a  deterioration into ad hominem assaults on occasion.  Many of us respect Professor Francione immensely because of the clarity and consistency of the message he ends, because of his tireless work for animals, and for his stand for ahimsa or non-violence.

Anyone who finds his message resonating within them is then accused of being a cult member, which is rather humorous in light of the theoretical basis of his view of animal rights. What these misguided people see as a fanatical attachment to a personality is, in fact, admiration and respect for a theoretical approach which seems to offer the only hope for peace and the end of commodification of animals.  Personally, there are many welfarists that I admire for their optimism and tireless work on behalf of animals. I love their hearts and know how sincerely they want to end all animal suffering. I deviated from the path they were on, and here is why:

Why I Left Welfare Activities

1. First, welfare reform is ineffective.  As long as animals are property, they will be difficult to protect. They will be considered commodities and will be subject to the whims of their owners. Despite decades of protesting the clubbing of seals, elephants in the circus, shooting of wolves, the fur trade, hunting, the killing goes on. Until a large proportion of the population adopt a vegan attitude towards animals, little will change.
2. Second, it supports the status quo. The current situation for animals is precarious because they are considered property and some humans benefit financially from their commodification.  Since working within the given structure reinforces the subjugation, it is doubtful it will ever change without a change in attitude towards animal life.
3. Third, it sends a very confused message to the public. Few of the animal protection organizations support veganism; some support veg*n, veggie, vegetarian or other such terms. This is confusing because if one is not vegan, one is still supporting the commodification of animals. Asking people to send money to an organization whose own members are consuming animal products is a sign of moral confusion. Owning stock and profiting from animal abuse causes confusion, as does campaigning for measures such as Controlled Area Killing (CAK), free range eggs, and humane labeled meat. There is some evidence that these campaigns have actually increased the demand for meat and eggs; it has definitely confused the public.  Let’s not add to it.
4. Fourth, it detracts from the energy and resources that could be going towards clear and consistent vegan education. HSUS  and PETA both take in millions of dollars each year. Imagine if they clearly promoted veganism. Imagine rather than using celebrities, many of whom are inconsistent and unclear about the meaning of veganism, if PETA promoted vegan education with their considerable PR machinery and funding.
5. Fifth, individual causes reinforce speciesism by gaining momentum based on emotional appeal. Baby seals, dolphins, cats and dogs all appeal to many human beings, but lobsters, turkeys, and pigs need non-speciesist individuals to fight for them, too. Animal welfare organizations tend to promote animals that are appealing to humans as a priority. It is no more just to work on protecting only certain species than it is to protect only certain human beings. It reinforces speciesism.

First, We All Need a Vision

One of the problems between welfarists and abolitionists is an inability to dialogue and debate. Many welfarists, sometimes referred to as New Welfarists, actually say they are abolitionists but believe the road to the abolition of animal use must be paved with welfare regulations first.  Believing they are being pragmatic, they view abolitionists as doing nothing, while abolitionists regard welfarists as spinning their wheels and wasting energy better spent on vegan education.  I would like to suggest that all of us need to expand our vision to what we would like to see happen and stop voicing that it is impossible. It is not. In my lifetime I have seen changes in women’s rights and civil rights that led to a female presidential candidate and an African-American president in 2008. But it took the vision of a man who went to the mountain top before it could happen.  Things change, if we can envision it, if we can imagine…..

It is doubtful that welfarist and abolitionists will ever see eye to eye, because there are two distinct views of how to end the subjugation and injustice towards animals.  In one vision, we must work within the existing power structure to effect change by using rules and regulations.  In the other viewpoint, animals should never be considered as property, must have a right to their own personhood, should be allowed to live their lives in the way they were intended rather than being used to benefit another species. This also means clear vegan education.

Many say abolitionists are dreamers, but the vision is very important towards achieving success.  It doesn’t take a preponderance of individuals in a movement to make it successful; in fact, it is usually a minority of people that effect change.

The Dancing Guy and Starting A Movement for Change

There has been a You Tube video going around called Leadership Lessons in Starting a Movement (by Derek Sivers) about how a dancing guy at a concert represents the start of a movement. There is just a single guy, dancing alone, with people giving him a glance as if he is a bit odd.  But after a while, a second guy gets up and starts dancing, too.  This second guy changes everything, because now the first guy looks like a leader  and not a crazy guy – he is just ahead of the pack.  After awhile, more and more people get up and  begin dancing, until the hillside is alive with dancing. At first it might have just been Gary Francione, dancing solo, getting hit from all sides.  But now, more people are joining in. We already have two teen abolitionist podcasters in New Zealand alone – imagine if there were teen abolitionist podcasters all over the globe! It will be wonderful when there are people joining us in the dance all around the world. As Emma Goldman said, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.”  All we need to do now is just dance!

Animal Rights People to Know

Tim Gier mantains an excellent animal rights blog. He is on Twitter and Facebook, too, and provides a lot of relevant information and articles for other people.  Tim has an engaging style of writing that is sure to win you over and get you thinking.  His Facebook page says it all, “I am not trying to be better than anyone else; I am just trying to be better than I was before.” You can find his blog at timgier.com. Be sure to bookmark it because you are going to want to come back to it again and again. Tim is a prolific writer so check back frequently – you do not want to miss any of his posts.

Another important contributor in the animal rights field is Sandra Cummings. Sandra has a facebook page called the Vegan Starter Kit that has more information in a small space than you can find anywhere.  She also posts lots of positive articles relating to justice, animal rights, and veganism.

An excellent writer is Angel Flinn of Gentle World. Angel writes for Care2.com and maintains her own blog, The Vegan Solution. Don’t miss her article, Being Vegan is a Speciesist World and Free Range – Not Free Enough.

Trouble by Elvis Preseley

Trouble by Over the Rhine

Imagine by John Lennon

Just Dance by Lady GaGa and Colby O’Donis

Leadership Lessons from the Dancing Guy by Derek Sivers

Tim Gier

The Vegan Starter Kit by Sandra Cummings

The Vegan Solution by Angel Flinn

Mylène on the Beach

One of the blogs I find myself returning to again and again is My Face Is on Fire. Mylène Ouellet is the force behind its creation – she states, “I like to poke around and see how much of the issues surrounding (the ethics of consumerism) are (mis)represented in the mainstream media.”  Watch out, media, you are being scrutinized!  A recent post blasted yet another celeb for promoting a non-vegan burger that she admitted to eating. Not only is Mylène a tremendous worker for the cause of abolitionism, she is an intelligent and dedicated human being that has deep respect for animal life as is in evidence in the following interview:

What is your vegan history?  Your abolitionist history?

I spent too, too many years — around a dozen — as a lacto-vegetarian participating in various online “veg*an” discussion forums before going vegan. Although I actually spent many of those years living animal-product-free, I only consider myself to have been vegan a little short of three years, since just after my father died.

Sometime in early 2007, I’d started listening to Bob and Jenna Torres’ Vegan Freak Radio podcast and unlearned a lot of what I’d had drilled into me about veganism the years I’d spent as a non-vegan shuffling various animal products in and out of my diet while convincing myself that I was making ethical choices. Bob and Jenna were the first two vegans I’d ever heard discussing veganism as anything other than a “personal choice.” I’d spent years hearing vegans being dismissed as “extremist” in these online communities where vegans having the audacity to talk about veganism were often chided for hurting others’ feelings by suggesting that consuming dairy or eggs (or using any other animal product) was wrong. Hearing Bob and Jenna’s podcast was an absolute relief.  It was the first time I’d ever heard anyone presenting veganism as the absolute least we can do if we’re serious about the rights and interests of nonhuman animals, and they did it in this matter-of-fact way that made veganism sound normal and the consumption and use of nonhuman animals sound extremist.

Vegan Freak Radio and the Vegan Freak Forums were also where I first learned about Gary L. Francione.  His abolitionist approach to animal rights had the sort of clarity that left me sorry that I’d spent so many years with such muddled thinking. Reading Prof. Francione’s work is what cemented my decision to go — and stay! — vegan and it convinced me that I needed to take things one step further by using my blog to talk to others about veganism.

Do you live with any companion animals? History with nonhuman animals?

I currently live with three cats.  Zeus and Sophie were adopted as kittens almost 10 years ago.  Friends were fostering them for a local shelter, along with their mother, who’d been abandoned pregnant in an apartment by tenants who’d skipped out on their rent. I had been thinking of introducing another cat to the household and when I met the kittens, I fell in love with both.  I had only planned to adopt one, but Sophie had problems with her eyes and I had been told that there was a chance that she would be killed, since it decreased the likelihood of her adoption (her eyes teared constantly — something eventually misdiagnosed as fused tear ducts).

Zeus in the Sunlight

A little over a year later, Sammy was rescued from a neglectful neighbor in my building who’d left him outside 24/7 for several months.  I spent a lot of time in my vegetable garden and he decided to starting hanging out with me.  After I’d spent an entire summer feeding him and treating his abscessed bite wounds from all of the scraps he’d get into — and after failing miserably at getting the local SPCA to do anything — I approached the neighbor about him and she told me that she’d been hoping he’d just “go away.” I’d intended to rehome him, since I was living with four cats at the time, but he was nervous and tended to snap and I was worried that I’d be unable to find someone willing to be patient with him.  As it turns out, he’s just such a really sensitive and intuitive guy and I can’t imagine not having spent the last several years sharing my home with him.

Sophie's Cave

I’ve been rescuing, fostering and rehoming cats for over 20 years now.  Every single one of them was a person to me and has had an impact on my life.  I’m grateful to have had a chance to get to know each one and to have been able to help each one.  Some, like Tarwater who came to live with me in 1994 and died just last summer, I still mourn.  So many people have this unfortunate notion that cats are aloof, and they view them as being sort of generic, when nothing could be further from the truth.  You need to get to know them, to establish relationships with them — as you would with anyone. They’re incredible individuals. I agree with what Vincent Guihan says of them.  He calls them refugees.  These cats, dogs and all the rest of the animals bred into existence to be our so-called pets and then abandoned to shelters — we need to give them homes, to let them live our their lives. People go on about open rescue — busting animals out of factory farms — when there are over 3-4 million cats and dogs (and rabbits, mice, rats, et al.) killed in shelters every year in the US alone. And why?  Because they were bred into existence for human pleasure and then tossed aside when those humans were done with them.  If you have the space, please adopt a non-human refugee from your local shelter.

Is there a viable vegan community where your live?

I live in a really small city in a tiny Canadian province that is mostly rural.  Hunting and fishing are favourite pastimes and animal agriculture is everywhere.  Veganism has entered the mainsteam and more and more people I encounter are familiar with the idea of it, however, speciesism is such a part of the culture here that I’ve only ever so briefly met one other vegan in this city (and our politics were significantly different). She very much believed that veganism was a personal choice and that it didn’t matter whether or not other people used animals.  To me, that’s like saying that you’re against child slavery so won’t enslave children personally, but that you don’t care whether or not others do. I think that some vegans, although refraining from using animals themselves, still very much need to come to terms with their own speciesism in this sense.

The very first time I was ever knowingly in a room with vegans was when I met Prof. Francione and his partner Anna Charlton early last September.  They’re absolutely wonderful people, both of them.

Sammy Relaxing

Is your family supportive of your veganism?

I grew up in a very small town in a working class family.  Both of my parents had been raised on farms and had been taught to view animals as existing for human use. I was the sort of kid who’d bring home every single stray I encountered, but my mother believed quite strongly that non-humans either belonged in the woods or in barns — certainly not inside houses.  I’d already been living away and on my own when I started changing my consumption habits, and my parents respected my choices as personal choices, but for the most part, my family members had it in their heads that I had stopped eating animals because I was a big old softy — that it was an emotional thing. My father used to say that he could relate to it since although hunting season was a very big deal when I was growing up, he refused to hunt, stating that he couldn’t bring himself to kill another living being. During his last few years, he asked me a lot of questions about my actual reasons and the ethics behind it, though, and soon expressed an interest in reducing his own consumption of animal products and in having me cook some vegan dishes for him, but he had so many dietary restrictions at the time that my mother — who did all of his cooking — was opposed to it. I’m convinced, based on our conversations, that had circumstances been different, my father would have eventually gone vegan.

Any advice for budding activists?

Read all that you can get your hands on and think critically about everything that you read and about any information you’re given by anyone.  A lot of people get into animal advocacy thinking that there’s immediate gratification to be had from it and get disappointed when they realize that we have a lot of work to do to change the status quo significantly and permanently. Part of changing this status quo involves informing yourself of the issues and arguments so that you can be a better advocate.  Part of it also involves staying focused on what we owe non-human animals and to talk to people about going vegan and about rejecting the commodification of non-human animals.   Read Gary L. Francione’s Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog to gain a better understanding of animal rights and Rain Without Thunder to learn why it is that anything other than an abolitionist rights-based approach falls so incredibly short in helping non-human animals. Focusing on regulating their use accomplishes nothing except to make people more comfortable with using them. Is that what we really want?

It’s also important to get to know other vegans — other animal rights activists.  Start an abolitionist vegan group in your school or city.  Start an animal rights book club.  There’s a great discussion forum online called Animal Emancipation where abolitionists come together to discuss everything from advocacy to animal ingredients — come join in the discussion.

Mylène posts frequently on Facebook, and you can follow her on Twitter, too (MFIoF).  Be sure to check out her new podcast, either on her blog (My Face Is on Fire) or on iTunes.  Her passion for ethical consumerism, abolitionist animal rights, and simple fairness are all apparent in her writings and podcasts.

Sammy Before Adoption - (Now an indoor cat!)

]]> http://veganacious.com/2010/06/07/mylene-ouellet-abolitionist-on-fire/feed/ 5 http://veganacious.com/2010/01/29/the-rumblings-of-a-vegan-tsunami/ http://veganacious.com/2010/01/29/the-rumblings-of-a-vegan-tsunami/#comments Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:19:29 +0000 veganacious http://veganacious.com/?p=4847

As a young teenager, I used to surf the coast of Southern California. My vision was poor, so I learned to feel the currents of water beneath me. When there was a light drawing back, it meant a swell was coming and I needed to get paddling. If I delayed, I would miss the ride, and if I was too fast, I would have the wave crash down on me and would wipe out. Lately, I have been feeling a shift in the currents beneath me once again, only this time I do not plan to miss it.

PETA’s Failed Policies

There have been rumblings on the vegan blogosphere about some of the latest new lows reached by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  Their pie-in-the-face disrespect to a person in authority seems contraindicated when requesting more respect for other beings.  It is assaultive and inappropriate behavior not becoming adults with serious intentions. Then there is the full frontal nudity of a young woman in their State of the Union Undress (deliberately not linked here) – disrespectful not only to women but also to our elected leaders. Even Ingrid Newkirk‘s response (A pragmatic fight for animal rights) to Victor Schonfeld’s article, Five fatal flaws of animal rights activism, in which she defends “silly antics” as being part of animal rights activism misses the mark by a mile.  While Ms. Newkirk may be well-intentioned, her behavior is the same old tired tactics that have been failing to do anything but increase the PETA budget and gain some press for many years.  At every turn, Ms. Newkirk sells out the animals and any chance to show respect for their lives, whether it is by cooperating with fast food enterprises that kill animals for food and profit, or partnering with corporations by buying stock in animal exploitation schemes. Ms. Newkirk never draws a line in the sand, never acts as if she believes what she says that animals are not ours to use; she uses and exploits them freely to draw attention and financial support to her organization while they remain in a living hell. I have noticed lately that when an outrageous behavior occurs in the news, such as the recent intrusion into Senator Mary Landrieus’ office by men dressed as phone company repairmen, the allusion on a recent MSNBC news discussion was to liken them to “PETA protesters.” Meanwhile, only 7 animals were saved in PETA’s “shelter” in 2008, while nearly 2,000 were killed.  With millions of dollars in annual income, it seems impossible that those lives were valued, because with the will to save them, they could have. If PETA wants ethical treatment for animals, they should begin by delivering some themselves.

HSUS Sells Out to Flexitarians

HSUS recently got into the fray, decrying the criticism from abolitionists this organization has been receiving.  While HSUS does not stoop to media madness in the same vein as PETA, they still have quite a few things in common with them and appear to be becoming more and more aligned with similar policies. While Wayne Pacelle is a hired hand whose position requires him to support the policies of his agency, unlike Ms. Newkirk who is a founder of hers,  it is still his choice to do so.  Reportedly he is a vegan; however, his organization does not support veganism to any significant degree. They have recently sold out by also partnering with fast food companies that kill animals for profit and joined in a “flexitarian” campaign with a major food service corporation. While it is admirable that this corporation is providing more meat-free meals, it is a far cry from HSUS taking the stand that all animal commodification is not to be tolerated. There are many vegan businesses that HSUS could profile; they deliberately chose a corporation that will allow their supporters to feel the warm fuzzies while consuming animal products. With friends like these, who needs enemies? If no one in an organization called HUMANE is willing to say commodifying animals is unacceptable, one would assume that, like PETA, HSUS considers the commodification of animals acceptable practice, at least in the immediate sense. Most would not deny that HSUS does some good; indeed, with millions annually, they have ample opportunity.  Stopping dogfighting is a noble idea, but doing so while participating in eating and commodifying other animals is not.  In the big picture, their policies are failing the bulk of animals yet they lack the moral courage to take a stand on the animals’ behalf.

It is interesting that Gary Francione has done more to change attitudes without any organization and without any budget than all of the high profile organizations put together.  Neither Wayne Pacelle nor Ingrid Newkirk are willing to debate Gary Francione, either. Put simply, he has remained consistent and has not sold out. So please do not write a check to any organization to make yourself feel better about the plight of animals without reading the paper – the news is not good for most animals on any given day. And despite what  you may be told, things appear to be getting much worse.  But within the vegan community, things are growing bigger, too, and a swell is developing. There are a number of individuals who will not sell out, who are quietly working hard to improve the status of animals, to promote peace, to save the earth, and who draw a line in the sand — animals are not commodities, not “things” to be modified and abused for commercial gain, profit, research or entertainment.  Recent reads of letters such as Mr. Schonfeld’s reveal numerous abolitionists agreeing about failed welfarist policies; letters in response to Ms. Newkirk’s letter offer contempt for that agency’s tactics.

This is not to lump all animal organizations into one.  There are some good organizations out there doing some very good work with limited financing.  They support veganism, allow space for ethical discussion, support no-kill shelters and spay-neuter programs, and work to improve and preserve habitat so there will be wildlife left for the future.  Organizations exist that provide sanctuary to homeless animals who would otherwise be destroyed. Working for justice and respect for life, promoting non-violence, and building a vegan community of support are all important work.  There are those that take in homeless animals and try to find homes for them. There are companies producing some excellent vegan products and some wonderful human beings developing innovative ideas for the future.  But even without that kind of structure or vision, each of us individually can reach out to change attitudes.  It is through individual activism and outreach, especially in this era of the internet, that real change will take place. Keep challenging those who harm the movement by behaving in violent or disrespectful ways. Become part of the rumblings, and let the volume grow. Make disrespect for other forms of life totally unacceptable.

A vegan tsunami is coming; add your voice.