Archive for ‘Welfarism’

20 February, 2011

The New Enemy: The Militant Vegan (say what?)

from the Militant Vegan collection

What is this Militant Vegan that has suddenly emerged on the blogs and social networks? This is my response to an article that has gotten a lot of attention recently. From Veggie Girl: An open letter to militant vegans.

Personally, I’m a Vegan-vegan, and anything else, is divisive. Designed to separate us, put us in a little box and slap a label on it.

And I will happily walk the vegan path with anyone who wants to stand beside me, regardless of what label they choose to put on themselves.


However…. For vegans out there who regularly participate in online forums, debates and social network sites, you may have noticed there is a new enemy out there… the mysterious, illusive and dastardly “Militant Vegan“.

This phrase “militant vegan” seems to have cropped up a lot recently, it seems to be an insult to active vegans.

I say Illusive, because I’ve yet to see one.

I do not know where it originated, this concept that vegans who refuse to love-on meat producers is someone “too militant” and gives “vegans a bad name”.

In this blog piece – the concept of militant vegan is examined….

An open letter to militant vegans
by Veggie Girl

… it doesn’t really tell me much about what a militant vegan looks like but if this writer represents the opposite of militant, then an “UNmilitant vegan” (like her) is a lot like a new-welfarist, pseudo-vegan collaborator with the animal-death industries.

Apparently, according to Veggie Girl, vegans are the new Westboro Baptist Church (for more information on who and what Westboro Church is Luna Coyote87 Presents: “Reason You Suck Post”: Westboro Baptist Church). That hateful, anti gay church that pickets funerals with the slogan “god hates fags”.

As Veggie Girl says: if you’re a militant vegan

you’re just an animal-loving version of Fred Phelps. And nobody likes that guy except his fellow church members



Seriously, a homophobic, hatefill, angry cult is just like being vegan? Are you kidding me??

I know a lot of vegans, and I have never yet met one who I would consider “militant” – I don’t even know what that means…

Because if you are not doing all you can to fight for the lives of animals, then what are you doing? Wasting time!

No seriously, WTF does “militant” mean? Someone doing everything in their power to end the slaughter, slavery, cruelty and exploitation of animals.

And if that is what Militant is, why are you proud that you’re not. I don’t find it particularly admirable that you admit that you are a lazy, ungrateful, apathetic, passive Inactivist. I don’t understand why someone would brag about that.

Meanwhile, if there is a strident, screeching, hateful, harridan example of militant – it would be this Veggie Girl.

Who knew that “consciously raised and slaughtered meat and eggs” – as Veggie Girl points out – is now acceptable to vegans.

How is it helpful to attack someone like Rachel Kesley, the chef at WaterCourse Foods, who was a vegan for three years but decided to add consciously raised-and-slaughtered meat and eggs back into her diet


Never heard of Rachel -the meat eater – Kesley until now, certainly never heard anyone “attack” her.

But let’s get away from the hyperbolic violent rhetoric for a minute – by “attack” does Veggie Girl mean that someone found Rachel and physically hurt her? Or in Veggie Girl’s world does attack equal “they used mean words”.

Come on, Veggie Girl – turn down the violent language just a notch, and then your attack on Militant Vegans may, perhaps, possibly have a bit more credibility…. and a lot less irony and hypocrisy.

Militant is a meaningless word in the context of fighting for justice and rights, and is used to discredit that person or group which someone disagrees with. One step away from extremist, emotive but useless.

Because in the parallel bizarro world that Veggie Girl lives in, eating “humanely slaughtered meat and eggs” is peaceful veganism, but pointing out humane is a myth is somehow militant.

Your poor dear, how do you get through your day, it seems like just about every vegan out there that you meet is militant and out to get you.

Because as this blog piece seems to think, you can have non-cruelty milk, cruelty free eggs, compassionately slaughtered meat and if you are really really nice, to the animal abusing death industry, and say pretty please with a cherry on top, you may just…

inspire them to adopt humane practices


It seems that in the opinion of this Veggie Girl – humane slaughtered meat, and compassionate meat eaters who fight for welfare reform is what “vegan” is… and anything else is “militant”.

Hey, Veggie Girl, wanna see what “humanely slaughtered” meat looks like:
guess what – it looks exactly like inhumanely slaughtered meat.

Is this simply “dog whistling”*… “militant” is this the new phrase designed to attack “direct action” vegans? Because Francione has the market cornered on veganism as the new peace movement. … Is that what this is? Will anyone who has a different approach to the Minions of Gary Francione now be branded “Militant”?

Personally I have no problem with Gary Francione, at least when he talks about Veganism, he does prevaricate about what vegan means to him.

Is this some inference to ALF – balaclavas and camouflage?

In a similar way to the use of “new welfarism” and its design to silence Direct Action vegans, is militant meant to have anyone who speaks out on behalf of veganism quaking in their non-leather boots at a label?

My first impression, was this concept was the work of The Professor and His Minions, being all anti-violence, anti-ALF… but this “It’s all about Me-Me-Me Veganism” is more reminiscent of Tasha, the formerly Voracious Vegan.

As Rachelle, commented on Veggie Girls piece : You probably don’t mean militant. You probably just mean someone pointing it out to you and you don’t like it.

But let’s get real for a minute – why do we do this, why do we hyphenate vegan… ethical vegan, direct action vegan, mda vegan, abolitionist vegan, liberation vegan, and now militant vegan?

To quote Veggie Girl – Get off your high horse

Edited to addAn Open Letter From A “Militant” Vegan
Veganism is absolutely essential to the animal rights movement as veganism IS justice for animals. Yes, we are passionate, but not aggressive. Yes, we are relentless, but not lazy. Yes, we are unwavering…. Yes, we are vocal, as justice has never been won by silence.

*Dog Whistling= an Australian phrase, used in politics, involving coded words, that send one benign message to the general public, but another message to the target audience. Particularly around issues of race, for example “illegal refugees”.

Edited to add: thank you everyone who took the time to explain what “militant” means, I wanted to look at why there seems to be an increasing use of the phrase “militant vegan” by other vegans as a way to divide the AR movement.

When a vegan tells you to “shut up, youre too militant”, I’m asking, why they feel the need to do this, where as recently, the phrase used was “shut up, youre new welfarist”.

I am never going to shut up, rights are not given to the patient, the quiet, the meek – rights are fought for, its hard work, loud noisy agitation

Feedback welcome

3 February, 2011

If you start a debate with “I fight for animal rights, but I’m no vegan” don’t expect applause

If you fight for animal rights, you fight for the rights of all animals, there are no exceptions for those you think taste good.

Apparently my previous post upset a lot of people. (Justifying Meat Eating – ridiculous things meat-eaters say), even more so than my anti-vegetarian posts or where I point out that eating cheese isn’t actually vegan.

But the comments and insults are the same….

– Cut the vegan-cheese eaters some slack. Cut the meat eaters some slack. You are too militant and give vegans a bad name.

I even had one person say that I am too critical of meat eaters and that makes me a bad vegan. She justified her OPINION saying:

“I fight for animal rights, but I’m no vegan…”

Say what?

No really, say what? You fight for animal RIGHTS by EATING THEM??? or wearing them??

Did I miss something? How is it that you think consuming any animal product contributes to their rights?

I do not understand how someone who says they believe in animal rights can consume a product that is produced from slavery and torture and murder.

Perhaps they don’t truly believe at all.

Seriously, I do not understand – perhaps someone can explain it to me.



Eggs, consumed by animal loving vegetarians…
Does this look like “animal rights”?



How about dairy production?
What part of this Mercy for Animals video represents the rights of these cows?

Yeah, I can see how some animal rights activists might confuse this for liberation… um, no, I don’t.

Like a vegetarian who sees nothing exploitative with consuming, dairy or eggs or honey (some thoughtful reasons why this is a confusing rationale for a vegetarian to make, here: Why Veganism is a Feminist Issue). There seems to be a disconnect when people say they fight for animal rights, but continue to personally consume their corpses or products from their bodies.

If someone willingly and knowingly consumes any commercial animal product and does not see they horror behind it, they either cannot know where their food (and other consumables) comes from or they know and simply do not care.

As this previous post discusses, Cheese: The Other White Meat (why cheese eaters are problematic for vegans), the problem with cheese / dairy is that there is so much death involved. Similar stories are found in egg production and honey production.

And these are the people I’m not being NICE enough too?

You have got to be kidding me!

If you want someone being NICE about the reason people consume corpses, perhaps a blog called “vegan animal liberation” is not the place to go looking for it.

and, Why is it that VEGANS are always having to modify what they do, so they don’t “offend” those who eat the corpses of slaughtered animals. Ooh careful, don’t want to upset the very people whose selfishness is the direct cause of this exploitation, cruelty, slavery and murder.

Oh, and is it even possible to be too MILITANT when it comes to fighting for justice and liberation for animals, all animals.

Why must I, as a vegan, compromise. (As I am so often told I must)

From a vegan viewpoint, people who say they fight for animal rights, but aren’t yet vegan, make the fight a whole lot harder.

Outsiders who look at these people see them eating animal products or wearing animal products, may think that it is acceptable.

This is a common complaint that vegans, and in particular abolitionist vegans make against groups like PETA. When PETA campaigns for larger cages for the chickens used by companies like McDonalds or KFC, the message that non-vegans get is that animal rights activists think that there is an acceptable size of the cages. A concept that Gary Francione has called “New Welfarism”.

New welfarists … believe that welfarist reforms such as making cages bigger will eventually lead to empty cages

These welfarist campaigners are a worse than people who do nothing, that just make it a lot harder for real animal rights changes. (Imagine it from the other side – the meat producers say “what? you want no cages? no meat? no eggs? only last week, you said that if we increased our cages by an inch, you would consider that a victory”… such as the ludicrous demands from PETA to Sonic that “The company just agreed to begin purchasing eggs and to double the amount of meat it purchases from suppliers that use less cruel production methods.”)

I’m not laughing.

Although, I do appreciate what they do, I appreciate that they can contribute to fight, and I accept that meat eaters can do a lot, I don’t understand how they can say what they are fighting for is animal rights, but rather “animal welfare”.

So, all that remains is for me to ask these people – if you know all that know, why are you not vegan?

Personally, I don’t believe it is possible to fight for animal RIGHTS and not be vegan.

This is not about being militant, it is about the suffering and cruelty and exploitation of the animals.

Feedback welcome

Some people may take offense to this, thinking that I am saying what they do is not good enough. I am just trying to add another side to the debate, and like this post The Dreaded Vegan Discussion… Critical Thoughts Encouraged… shows – the vegan community is large and diverse and all voices are (should be) encouraged.

22 December, 2010

To be an activist, you have to ACT

In order to achieve great things, we must be prepared to take great risks

A reader of my blog recently left a nice comment, saying they didn’t like what I wrote – and why didn’t I feature more images of animal abuse and what people could do about it.

This comment bothered me, for some reason. I think, it was the wanting more images of abuse. I feature enough video clips of some of the most horrendous images most people couldn’t even imagine. To show any more would border on the gratuitous.

But why do some activists still need others to tell them what to do?

There is a reluctance about wanting to take action. Perhaps they are worried about doing the “wrong” thing and being labelled a new welfarist.

If people really believed in the fight for animal rights, they would take up that fight where ever and when ever they saw abuse, cruelty and exploitation.

Only American audiences ask me, “What should I do?” I’m never asked this in third world. When you go to Turkey or Colombia or Brazil, they don’t ask you, “What should I do?” They tell you what they’re doing… These are poor, oppressed people, living under horrendous condition, and they would never dream of asking you what they should do. It’s only in high privileged cultures like ours that people ask this question… We can do anything. But people here are trained to believe that there are easy answers, and it doesn’t work that way. If you want to do something, you have to be dedicated and committed to it day after day. Educational programs, organizing, activism. That’s the way things change. You want a magic key, so you can go back to watching television tomorrow? It doesn’t exist.

Noam Chomsky, Imperial Ambitions, p. 39-40

7 November, 2010

If you don’t know Steve Best or Camille Marino, you’re not really animal rights (say what?)

If fact, according to one comment on my recent blog post, if you haven’t read Camille Marino or Steve Best you can’t even call yourself “animal liberationist”.

ALF claim to rescue 129 rabbits from Highgate ...

not really animal liberation?

Here we go again – according to Carolyn Bailey, if you haven’t read every single word ever written by Gary Francione you’re a “fake” vegan; if you have a low IQ you are a not an activist; and if you happen to be an illiterate vegan… well that would just about give her a stroke.

And now we have the “redefining veganism” trend coming from the other side –

According to “Ryan”, my comment that I have never read Camille Marino or Steve Best is trash talk, and how dare I use words like vegan or animal liberation if I have never read these two.

I’m sorry, I seem to completely miss your point. Camille Marino who has been a vegan for probably 20 years less than me, now defines what my veganism is for me? “Ryan” are you serious? Are you kidding me?

I don’t want to get involved in the Best/Francione cat fight. To me that is not animal rights activism. It is pointless, and more to the point – really, really boring to 99% of the vegans in the world who are not USAmerican.

I don’t want to choose sides, I don’t want to align, but others keep insisting on doing that for me (much like the threats against my family and racist hatefilled comments I have received from abolitionists), people seem to have their own ideas of what “vegan” is, and if you don’t match that, then you are FAKE.

Oh please.

I have nothing against these people, I just have more local people blogging about animal rights in my country, issues that affect my life directly, rather than the abstract, which I read first and when I have time, then I will move on to people from other countries.

Or, is it case of Neo-Colonialism, as I said in my reply to “Ryan”.

If it is USAmerican, it is universal. When USAmericans speak, the rest of the world has to bow down before them, and go “oh you are so correct, how did I live my life before you blogged”. Ridiculous.

Someone should break it to “Ryan” that vegans exist in probably all countries in the world, some probably don’t read English, some may not even read, and some possible don’t have access to an internet or even a computer.

Much like Carolyn Baileys insane ramblings that if you can’t read you’re not an activist but you are a fake vegan, Ryan is now pushing the patronising view point that if you don’t read Camille Marino or Steve Best you really have no right calling yourself a vegan or even an animal rights activist.

I don’t really think I need to repeat my previous blog post, but Ryan seems to have missed my point before he rushed to judgement….

So, let us all stop worrying about what other people are doing, who is or isn’t vegan, who is or isn’t being read and concentrate on our lives. Vegan has a definition, let’s use it, and if you don’t like it, invent your own word, and we can all stop these pointless debates about the “fake” vegans who choose to ignore Francione.
If you’re not abolitionist, you aren’t really vegan

Or, as I now seem to have to add…. Let’s stop these pointless insults about the “fake animal rights activists” who haven’t read Camille Marino or Steve Best.

18 October, 2010

Abolitionist Vegan Bullying

After my previous post (Vegan On Vegan Bullying), describing some of the online bullying I have seen within the animal rights “community” in general, I received a range of comments at @redglitterx, the strangest from someone who identifies as abolitionist vegan was “bullying has always happened, so what is the big deal?”

This update on my previous post is my reaction to that absurd comment.

I find this strange for one particular reason, this abolitionist vegan wants to “re-educate” the world to go vegan, this abolitionist vegan thinks “if you use mean words you aren’t vegan”, this abolitionist vegan is one of the most vilest people online, with the hatred she pours all over those she regards as “violent welfarists” (ie: violent welfarist is what they call people who don’t agree that abolitionists are the one true way).

Someone should slap this woman upside the head, not me of course, I believe in peace-love-and-kumbayah will solve the worlds probelms.

These people want the world to change in how animals are regarded as tools of the capitalist State. They want people to be educated out of treating animals as property, they want the cruelty, exploitation and abuse of animals to stop. …. But they are happy to inflict cruelty, bullying, and abuse of people?

Why do these abolitionist vegans think they will get the world to treat animals with respect and dignity when they treat humans as garbage, as pawns, as nothing, as toys to be abused.

You can’t expect people to change hundreds of centuries of behaviour that says abuse of animals is acceptable, and then say, “but bullying has always happened, so why is it an issue?”

I have no opinion either way, abolitionist or everyone else… however, the only nastiness from other vegans I personally have experienced has been from “abolitionists”… some of the most vile of comments, from threats to my family, trying to send me online porn (love those spam filters!) and racist taunts.

Although I would like to believe there are some good abolitionists out there, my past experience with them has been less than pleasant.

I don’t understand the need those people feel driven to be so divisive, but deliberately setting out to inflict hurt against other vegans, is not a productive way to win animal rights.

Oh yeah… “animal rights” that’s what we are here for…. isn’t it?

3 October, 2010

Why Vegan SICs (Single Issue Causes) Deserve Support

Edited 29/11 to add: there has been a lot of accusation about recently over this piece, things like, I support happy meat …ah- for the illiterate who said that, I do not support “happy meat” hence this video I made:

For the abolitionist who said, I am misrepresenting and am inaccurate – I am not aligned with any side, You – as an abolitionist may disagree, but since I am not “representing” abolitionism, I can hardly “mis-represent” it. And rather than blather on to other people about how inaccurate (huh?) it is, how about leave a comment and tell me Where! it is inaccurate – oh wait, I forgot, you are an abolitionist, all you do is criticise and bully anyone who doesn’t think exactly like you. You have no desire to engage with anyone who isn’t part of your little clique or debate or defend your ideas, your idea of “vegan education” is to insult and call people “wrong” but since you haven’t ever learned to think for yourself, you can’t explain Why! someone is wrong, unless your Leader tells you first What! to think.

So go pray to your cult leader and maybe when you are perfect then I will accept your judgment of me.

Single Issue Cause, or as abbreviated SICs, are often the feature of mockery amongst animal rights advocates. But there are valid reasons why I support them.

The people who criticise others for not doing everything, are often those who don’t even attempt to do anything, in case they in turn are criticised for not doing everything.

When I hear certain vegans saying silly little things such as “people are always organising Anti-Fur demos, but never Anti-Leather demos” or “why do people have campaigns to “Save the Whales” but never “Save the Cows” whats the difference?” or “Meat free monday tells people that it is okay to eat meat on the rest of the week”.

Or they harass without mercy vegetarians as being corpse-eaters, because any animal used for food, the suffering of dairy cows and egg-laying hens, as well as the male calves and chicks being slaughtered as useless to the industry means there is blood on the mouths of vegetarians.

Often these are the same people that leap to the defence of such “vegan” celebrities as Alicia Silverstone, who eats eggs and dairy, saying they are doing a good job, and what is a little dairy. Although her ads for PeTA have been for Vegetarian campaigns, never vegan.

However, in the war against cruelty and exploitation of animals, it seems to me, a bit naive to expect the entire world population of over 6-billion people to go vegan instantly.

In the meantime, animals are still be exploited and continue to abused and treated with cruelty.

As an activist, I have seen people who would step in front of an exploding harpoon to save a whale from a Japanese whaler, yet continue to eat chicken and pork. I have seen people who can write passionate online essays in defence of veganism, yet continue to own stock in pharmaceutical companies and in companies that have palm oil plantations in Sumatra. I have seen people who make movies about the fur-trade, and yet, turn to abolitionist vegans who spend every minute online decrying anyone who promotes “anti-fur” as being a SIC and therefore welfarist.

I have found it is often those who come to veganism quite late in life who are the most harshest judges of other people, possibly thinking, “If I can make the connection, then they should as well”. And yet, while they are so preoccupied promoting peace and violence hoping it will lead to veganism, they often neglect to show empathy and compassion to other humans. (And sometimes very little to the animals, their veganism sometimes presents as “I’m perfect, why aren’t you?” instead of seeking to end cruelty and exploitation of all animals).

What is wrong with engaging people with the causes they are passionate about and then encouraging them to extend their compassion wider?

I’m fighting a war against exploitation and cruelty, I’m fighting against some of the largest industries in the world, killing animals is extremely lucrative, and fighting for animals is only lucrative for those who are prepared to sell out.

So if someone wants to take some of the load off my shoulders and organise an Anti-Fur protest, I will say: good, thank you. …

I will not ask them to also organise an anti-leather, anti-wool, anti-silk, anti-suede rally… and then because cruelty goes beyond clothes, I must also ask them to organise an anti-vivisection, anti-meat, anti-dairy, anti-egg, anti-honey, anti-whaling, anti-tuna, anti-logging in Sumatra protest, anti-circus, anti-zoo, anti-horse racing, anti-rodeo protest… and then because vegan means anti-violence and pro-feminism and pro-LGBT, I will be asking them to organise an anti-violence protest and pro-feminist rally and pro-lesbian-gay-bi-trans march… at this point if we are still friends, their likely response will be “go to hell”.

How do you complete a walk of 10,000 kilometres? One step at a time.

Single Issue Causes, are a way of connecting with others who are just taking steps into learning about animal cruelty, and treating them with hostility and disdain, is nothing short of bullying on our part and diminishes us as human beings, and possibly alienates potential vegans. It is nasty, it is bullying and this harassment of part-vegetarians and welfarists needs to be reexamined. We should work on encouraging them to either take up the vegan cause or leave them alone.

Does bullying ever work to gain true believers?

Single Issue Causes raise awareness of issues with people who are yet to make a connection. You never know what it will be that triggers someone to finally see that the food on their plate used to be a living being and the clothes on their back use to have a life. To a meat-and-dairy eating, leather wearing individual, they have little interest in the politics of welfare v rights, abolition v liberation; they only see a movement full of nasty, brutal, hate-filled people who have no empathy for anyone who isn’t exactly like them.

Is this the first-impression that we as vegans and animal rights activists want to present? No, really, is it?

Harassment of Single Issue Cause activists, implies you know them intimately and know every single detail of their lives. Exactly how do the critics of single issue cause know that the people who speak out against fur on one day aren’t out there promoting veganism on the other 364 days of the year? How does it promote animal rights to hate on others that are trying to make a difference – and what are you doing to end exploitation and cruelty to others, besides spreading it to other humans.

To suggest that someone who is fighting a single-issue cause is not also fighting every other cause when they can find 2 minutes to take a breath is arrogant and judgmental.

Sometimes, when real animals are suffering, for example, a round-up of wild brumbies (horses) is immanent or duck-hunting season is about to open, do we debate the theories of speciesism or do we take up this single issue cause and fight for these animals. In cases like this, some activists might put aside their promoting of vegan education, and fight for animals who are about to die. Sometimes the way to prevent the deaths of real animals is to make alliances with non vegans and non animal rights people. And then you can debate theory afterwards.

How do you build the Great Wall of China? One brick at a time.

Also, for a movement that is constantly redefining itself as being all-movements (peace, non-violence, feminist, pro-LGBT, anti-agist, differently-abled, anti-slavery…. it is also strangely middle-class, white, urban, Buddhist, consumerist and elitist, and extends harassment to anyone who doesn’t match that criteria… see Suburban Vegans… Sydney vegans say ‘Forget You!’).

Most people work, have friends, family, volunteer, play sport, do housework, not everyone has the opportunity to spend all day, everyday online. And so, maybe all they can do it one or two issues that particularly touch their hearts. Who am I to criticise them for that?

I would no more criticise someone for focusing on a single issue, than I would criticise a 6year old just learning to read for not completing War And Peace, or criticise a toddler just learning to walk for not completing a marathon.

Single issues might be a way for someone new to activism to start to learn how to campaign. By starting with one issue, and learning as they go, they will soon get to know others, network, support, share, and be exposed to different ideas.

Focusing on one cause at a time, might also be a way to help groups or individuals when what seems like an over-whelming task – of re educating the entire population of the world about veganism. Fight one battle, win it, and move on. Rather than be paralysed at the enormity of the task in trying to reach over 6-billion people, activists start with what they can do, and complete it, freeing their mind, energy, emotions, money for the next task.

Single Issue Causes also can harness the activists working in local communities. I live over 500 kilometres from the ocean, trying to get locals interested in the plight of sea turtles might come across as being out-of-touch with the needs of local residents. On the other hand, talking about local issues that have an effect on the lives of people in my community might be the first time some of people in my town have thought about these issues.

And the reverse would apply, there would be people that live on the beach that love to fish, but also care about the conservation of sea turtles, dolphins, whales, sharks and penguins, do we say to these people – you have no right to be an activist, because we say so, only vegans are allowed to care about issues? How arrogant does that sound.

These complex and entangled roots feed our sense of disaffection and have bred the burgeoning single interest movement. Membership of political parties may have been in decline for decades but the number of people who can boast about their presence on a political march or their membership of a single issue group has done the opposite. The single issue has become the antidote to political apathy.
Apolitical animal? The rise of the single issue

Modern animal rights activists are not merely opposing single issue causes related to animals, they are opposing People are have different opinions that don’t matched their “every cause at once”.

They are quietly and subtly reworking the definition of vegan as “The animal rights movement is a new peace movement; a peace movement that includes all beings” – Gary Francione. … How long will it be, before veganism is an option in this reworked Peace Movement, or is Mr Francione positioning himself to be not only the father of Animal Rights (Donald Watson, you are irrelevant) but also the father of peace?

This kind of approach does not seem to be about making life better for the majority of living being on the planet, it seems to be about controlling the behaviour of a few followers.

The reliance of some vegans on “education” as a tactic, sounds eerily like Stalinist Gulags or North Korean “re-education camps”, it focuses on changing how people think, rather than the alleviating the suffering of those being exploited.

The fight to end the cruelty, exploitation and brutality against the animals of the world is overwhelmingly large, lets accept allies where ever they are.

26 September, 2010

Animal Liberation group using animal products

Negotiation Is Over is a self-style global animal rights collective, yet, they are using images of an animal product to promote themselves.

In the post Negotiation is Over: Guide To Direct Action, (hover over link for preview) a picture of a burning match is used to illustrate that post.

The image of the match is also used in more than one place on this blog.

Presumably based on an image taken from the cover of this book:

For all their talk of revolutions, Gandhi is quoted in this book, just like he is in so many other books about social change. Which, in itself is far from revolutionary.

Much criticism has been leveled at PETA, and other large animal welfare groups for supporting initiatives such as cage-free eggs and anti-fur. How is this any different? The use of a match as a symbol perpetuates the idea that it is acceptable to use animal products.

And joining the chorus of detractors, against a blog that does a lot of work to bring attention to issues of animal welfare, does this actually achieve anything for the animals.

After all, it is just an image on the computer screen, it is a cover of book, it isn’t an actual match. But it does raise thoughts of what a “perfect vegan” is, and more importantly, does a perfect vegan in reality exist.

Or, is it only in theory, that someone can be a “perfect vegan”? Once you move beyond the abstract, the theoretical, all someone can do is reduce the suffering they cause.

Matches are products that are made from animal products,

Safety matches: all matches contain animal based adhesives on the head of the stick and on the striking strip on the box. In the monsoon this is substituted with casein derived from milk using acid. Wimco Home lights use casein throughout the year.
LINK: here

The vegan blogger “Vegansaurus” also details the animal products used in the production of matches:

gelatin is a part of the chemical cocktail on match heads, and …“animal protein” as an ingredient promoting oxidization… “animal glue” as both a combustor and adhesive, and isinglass as a “conditioner”
LINK: here

Although, what undermines their message is their use of animal products to sell that message.

To be fair, this book is an environmental wake-up call and not an animal liberation book. Although, one of the editors, Dr Steven Best, is one of the leaders of the animal rights movement and one of the editors on the Negotiation Is Over blog.

This is in no way intended to sound like Vegan Big Brother, carrying out hyper-surveillance on other animal advocates, this is just intended to highlight how ubiquitous the use of animals in every day life is.

It also highlights the absurdity of some vegans to push a concept of a perfect vegan. If you live in any society, and interact with other people you will come into contact with animal products, and there are some that are unavoidable.

There are many lists, in books and online that list just some of the ways animals are used and abused to make consumer products, such as this one LINK: here.

It brings into question the entire concept of being a “perfect vegan”, perhaps, people should just strive to be a better vegan than they were the day before, and stop worrying about what other vegans are or are not doing.

So when vegans gang up on other vegans and vegetarians and carnivores and call them out for not being perfect, maybe they should take a long look at their own lives and see how perfect they are.

Does it matter what image they use? Matches for Direct Action animal liberationists, or naked women for anti-fur PeTA campaigns, does the ends justify the means?

Any opinions welcome

25 September, 2010

Vegan Big Brother

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.
George Orwell

Vegan Big Brother (VBB): like the mythical “vegan police”

Online vegans are always being watched and monitored by other vegans, lest they say something that could be interpreted as “new welfarism”.

This is vegan-against-vegan. (‘VBB’ really doesn’t care what non-vegans do.)

Is the harassment and bullying of other vegans and vegan organisations, really the best use of our time? I thought we were supposed to be reaching out to create new vegans out of the carnivores, and not act like an online bully to people we don’t agree with.

When these people spend more time, picking over every little word and action of vegans, animal rights activists and people who are making a difference, they are not looking at those who are abusing and exploiting the animals.

These people are acting like collaborators and saboteurs and agents of the state, out to create confusion and division within the AR community. I am not paranoid enough to suggest they are, but that is the effect of their actions.

It’s Time, to actually do what we say, we need to stop worrying about what other people are doing and thinking, and put animals first.

This is a hyper-surveillance that even Orwell couldn’t have imagined.

If anyone has any experience of this vegan-surveillance, personal experiences are welcome, if anyone wants to share.

21 September, 2010

PETA, objectifying women… again

From the PeTA degrade Women archives

Is it surprising to anyone that PeTA comes out with more of the same. Images that degrade, objectify and otherwise stereotype women.

The use of women’s bodies, such as this ad, which got banned from Superbowl, and resulted in an avalanche of publicity without the million-dollar pricetag for airing a commercial during Superbowl.

Or, the use of women’s bodies, in the picture at the top of this post… how exactly will that save any animals.

In both cases PeTA are promoting a VEGETARIAN diet. Maybe someone should force them to watch their own videos of dairy cows and egg-laying chickens…

Sidebar: have PeTA ever done any ‘anti-honey, save the bees’ exposé videos?

As an anti-censorship feminist, I don’t always understand the criticisms levelled against PeTA, for their use of women. PeTA is not a feminist group, they are not NOW (National Organization of Women) so they do not have feminist goals as their main objective. Their objective is animal… welfare? liberation? (I’m not sure what their objective is, other than promote PeTa).

I think that activists that use a diversity of tactics, a range from non-violent education to direct action may stand a better chance of ending the exploitation and enslavement of women, than those who narrow their arsenal down to an extremely limited range of tactics.

However, PeTA aren’t about Animal Rights, if they were, then it might be easier to overlook their exploitation of women, by justifying it, as – “if it saves an animal”.

PeTA, though, are not promoting Animal Rights, Animal Liberation or the end of animal slavery in any way at all.

Could someone tell me what all this “Go Vegetarian” nonsense is??

Among their many anti-animal-rights activists, they don’t even advocate people “Go Vegan”

I’ve written about PeTA before:
Celebrity Vegans And Vegetarians: their use of fur-wearing celebrities in their campaigns, 9.6 million dead animals… business as usual: PeTA (and other brand-name welfare groups) euthanising healthy but unwanted animals, and, PETA, you are not the voice of Animal Rights (so stop talking): a deeper look at the hypocrisy and failings of PeTA…
and it continues to astound even the most casual of animal activists, how PeTA continue to get away with their stunts.

And yet, the more moral outrage PeTA cause, the more publicity they attract, at the expense of real animal rights organisations and people. Leaving the general public to think that PeTA are representative of “Animal Rights Activists”. And leaving feminists to fight the exploitation of women.

Would it be acceptable to promote feminism – career success and a fulfilled life, by using the image of a fur-clad woman, stepping out of her luxury car with leather seats? No. So why is the degradation of women an acceptable tactic to promote animal welfare?

I have said it before, and I’m sure I will say it again… “PETA, you are not the voice of Animal Rights (so stop talking)”


Articles copyright 2010 ‘Vegan Animal Liberation Alliance’. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Written by RedGlitter of VALA

Feedback welcome.

17 September, 2010

Vegan question of the day….

The question: “why do online vegans spend so much time attacking each other?”

Quite often, I see other vegans saying things like “if someone supports meatless monday, they are suggesting it is ok to eat meat other days”… or “you say don’t eat meat, but what about dairy and eggs?” or something I see a lot more of lately …

“Why is Lady Gaga in her meat dress the centre of outrage, but Cher in her leather gets barely a mention?”

this leads to people blogging at each other, “why do people protest against fur, but when was the last time you saw a protest against leather or wool?”

My response to that is, someone is out there, organising the protests, arranging police permits, dealing with government officials, doing the publicity.

If people don’t like the fur protests, then organise your own leather protest or wool protest.

The have appointed themselves the Judge, Jury and Execution in deciding what is appropriate for other vegans to do. As long as someone is vegan, what business is it of anyone else how they fight for a vegan world.

It is one thing to criticise others, it is another to get out there and do something. And, when there are these people who say ridiculous things to each other like:

The “professional” animal activists are too afraid to say the word vegan.

When there is hyper-surveillance of what other vegans and animal rights activists are doing, they aren’t paying attention to what the animal abusers and exploiters are doing.

People are too scared to say or do anything, because they know the Vegan Big Brother is watching

And Vegan Big Brother is waiting for them to say something they don’t agree with, and then they will correct them.

This Civil War within the online vegan community is become more intense and more vicious by the day.

But, I will keep my head down in the online vegan community, not say anything to attract attention, and just keep doing my thing to talk about veganism, that is all I can do.

This post is not aimed at any particular person or organisation.—————————————————————————————————————

Articles copyright 2010 ‘Vegan Animal Liberation Alliance’. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Written by RedGlitter of VALA

Feedback welcome.