Posts tagged ‘rights’

31 March, 2012

Rights Aren’t Meant To Be Voted On – Rachel Maddow

text of quote: But here’s the thing about rights – they’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow

Advertisements
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 https://redglitterx.wordpress.com/


Feedback welcome.

30 August, 2010

Vegan – has a meaning, let’s use it

My thesis supervisor always said ‘define your terms’. That way, you explain your understanding of a concept up front. And if the reader has a different understanding, they still know what your meaning is.


This text is included in the above graphic, but depending on the size of your screen, or if the graphic is removed, the quote is reproduced below. Click to for full size, available for download.


The word “vegan” was invented in 1944, by Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, who founded the UK Vegan Society. The British Vegan Society defines veganism this way:

The word “veganism” denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.



Anyone who is involved with Animal Liberation today can see how since 1944, the word has been twisted and pulled in all directions. However, the UK Vegan Society founders invented the word, if this is their definition, this is what VEGAN means. If someone chooses to live differently to this, perhaps they should invent their own word.



This definition has 3 parts:
– the first part describes what it excludes, all forms of exploitation and cruelty to animals for any reason.

ALL animals: it does not say mammals, it does not say except fish, nor except invertebrates … it says all animals. And, there are also no exceptions for Bees. Bees are animals, honey is not a matter for debate. Honey does not come from plants, any more than milk comes from grass or grains or the rendered bodies of their fallen comrades. It is not possible to use an animal for any purpose without exploiting it. Just as it is exploitation of people to use them without the consent or paying a wage (we call that slavery), since animals cannot give consent, even if we think they are happy, all animal use is exploitation.

for ANY reason, eating them because someone thinks animal corpses taste good is not a reason for cruelty and exploitation, wearing animals as clothes or jewellery is not reason for cruelty and exploitation, torturing them in labs for profit is sadistic and gives in accurate results and is not a reason, using them for sport by forcing them to race or fight is not a reason, entertainment in circuses and rodeos shows our lack of creativity and is not a reason, crush films are not a reason, hunting for “sport” is not a reason, canned hunts are not a reason either and not very sporting, turning their bodies into floor cleaner and mascara is not a reason, slicing a rhino or elephants face off and letting it die for horn or ivory as a sex powder is not a reason, slicing fins off sharks for soup and throwing the shark back to drown is not a reason, anger management is not a reason, sex is not a reason despite what the author of ANIMAL LIBERATION has to say*. There is absolutely no defensible reason for using any animal for any reason.



– the second part goes on to describe how vegan is more than just excluding or avoiding products from your own life, it involves by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. Does this mean that if a vegan isn’t actively out there promoting veganism, encouraging veganism, and seeking alternatives for animal products to replacing current products on the market they aren’t vegan? It would suggest so.

If someone merely avoids bringing suffering into their own life by avoiding animal products they personally purchase, but do nothing to prevent the exploitation and cruelty of animals which they know is going on beyond their own little life, it would seem to more easily fit the criteria of ‘welfarist’, which isn’t vegan.



– the third part, reiterates the dietary part, in case people are still confused about the whole not using any animal for any reason, In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
It does not mean a little bit of cheese now and again is okay, it does not mean it is alright to eat fish because they swim rather than walk, it does not mean it fine to use honey because some people cannot see bees as animals, it does not mean home-collected free range eggs (which I once saw a fruitarian describe as “chicken fruit” and acceptable on a fruitarian diet).

Vegan is not hyphenated, unlike vegetarian. A person cannot be lacto-vegan (lacto=milk), ovo-vegan (ovo=eggs), pesco-vegan (pesco=fish), mel-vegan (mel=honey)

If a person decides to eat cheese, fish, honey, and free range eggs, it is their choice to do so. However, they should stop calling themselves ‘vegan’ because it fails to meet even the most basic definition of vegan diet which excludes “all products derived wholly or partly from animals”.

No exceptions, no clauses, no loopholes. If it is an animal product, it is not vegan.



What vegan ISN’T is feminism, anti-agist, anti-semitic, pro-semitic, christian, atheist, anti-homophobic, pro gay rights, anti-racist, pro-multi culturalism or pro peace. It is none of these things. And when people try to claim that a person is required to be feminist or anti-racist in order to be a vegan, is missing the point completely. What they are trying to sell you is not veganism. But some bland melange of rights and justice dressed up in “animal rights” clothing.

Veganism is end the exploitation and cruelty of animals, and animals only. All these other liberations will flow from widening our circle of compassion (A Einstein). It does veganism a disservice to transform it into one-size-fits-all model of liberation.

Other liberation movements or civil rights activists are not required to free the world, why is this a necessary for animal liberation and vegans?



Do we really need leaders and gurus and experts to tell us how to live as vegans? Do we need to debate and philosophise about veganism? Do we need to be told what do in the fight to end exploitation and cruelty?

How much money is diverted from saving animals to propping up and lining the pockets of groups and leaders who use “veganism” and “animal rights” to push their own agenda.

Vegan has a meaning, let’s use it. And not try to transform it into something that never was and shouldn’t be.

What is not including in this definition is the means to how the end to exploitation and cruelty will be achieved. It does not specify ‘non-violence’, nor does it advocate ‘pro-violence’. It simply encourages us to do it, not how.

The ‘How’ we achieve that is up to each and every one of us who choose to take up the fight on behalf of animals. There is no right way or wrong way.

————————————————-*–SOURCES–*————————————————-

* Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation (1975) who wrote Heavy Petting, (Nerve, 2001) (original article), which he defends sex with animals as “mutually satisfying” (Singer) and it’s not so bad as using them for food is worse.
I would like to point out, that one of the definitions of rape of humans includes sex without consent, since an animal can NEVER give consent, it is always rape, and always exploitation and cruel.

3 March, 2010

9.6 million dead animals… business as usual

There are approximately 9.6 million animals euthanised in the United States… the bulk of these animals for no reason except the expense it takes to care for them long enough to find them homes….

This is just the animals rejected at the shelters – in one country.

Why does this not shock people? How about the fact that the majority of these are killed/murdered/slaughtered by ASPCA, PETA and HSUS – The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and The Humane Society of the United States.

MUST SEE VIDEO!. ASPCA, PETA AND HSUS .. EUTHANIZATION “THE COVER UP”

How “humane”, “ethical” or “cruelty prevention” is the deliberate preventable deaths of almost 10 million animals?

Questions need to be asked before anyone hands over their donations as to exactly where they spend that money.

Just like you would for any charity or animal organisation, a pretty name can disguise their real agenda.

As discovered here Celebrity Vegans and Vegetarians – any person or group can say they are for animals, but words are meaningless without actions

Almost 10 million animals are murdered and to these large organisations not only is it business as usual, but it is also very profitable business.


Feedback welcome.

28 September, 2009

Katrina survivors’ struggle for justice

“Revolt and revolution both wind up at the same crossroads: the police, or folly”
Albert Camus



Vodpod videos no longer available.

—————————————————————————————————————

Katrina survivors’ struggle for justice



By Gloria Rubac
Houston
Published Sep 11, 2009 8:00 PM

Four years after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, survivors living in Houston are still fighting to keep a roof over their heads. On Aug. 31, three women spoke at a news conference at the Kensington Club II townhome apartments to expose the owner’s corruption and the squalid living conditions he allows.

The news conference was organized by Lenwood Johnson, a housing advocate with the Free Man’s Neighborhood Association. Johnson explained that the Kensington Club II owner is accepting Disaster Housing Assistance Program vouchers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency—yet is not crediting all of the renters’ accounts as being paid. Kofi Taharka, president of the National Black United Front and a representative of the International Action Center, also spoke.

Then residents Eugenia Brown, Quinna Brown, and Jennifer Whittington addressed reporters.

Whittington, who is severely disabled with arthritis and also has cancer, cannot work. She said she was depending on DHAP to contribute to her rent, but after complaining about conditions she received an eviction notice.

Whittington explained that her two sons had tried to find jobs ever since the family came to Houston, but as soon as they told prospective employers they were from New Orleans, they were told, “We aren’t hiring Katrina criminals.”

Eugenia Brown, who suffers from asthma, later showed reporters the mold growing in her apartment, as well as leaking ceilings and pipes. Volunteer movers were packing her belongings in a moving van as she spoke. Yet with nowhere to move to, Brown put her things in storage; for now she is staying with various friends.

Quinna Brown also allowed reporters into her apartment—which had mold, water stains, appliances that did not work, light fixtures falling from the ceiling and leaking pipes. She was in tears as she spoke. “I work at Wendy’s and am trying to keep a home for my 11-year-old daughter, yet the Disaster Housing Assistance Program is not paying the money it is receiving from HUD to the apartment owner,” she told reporters. Brown was trembling and sobbing as said she was about to totally fall apart over losing her home.

Because these women had complained to the owner about the unsafe conditions, he was evicting them rather than make required repairs.

A week after the news conference, Whittington was looking for a shelter to move to, even though she is still appealing her eviction orders and is in her apartment. “Men with guns keep coming to my apartment and threatening and intimidating me,” she told Johnson. “They are from the constable’s office and I am afraid.” Lenwood Johnson is helping her find a shelter to move to.

Johnson told Workers World that the owner wants Whittington out because she is fighting to make him make repairs. When these women complained to DHAP that the living conditions were unbearable, DHAP told them they “weren’t supposed to watch the apartment owners, but the criminals from New Orleans.”

Johnson said: “The struggle continues. We need a full-time watchdog to keep up with the unscrupulous landlords and FEMA. We have contacted the U.S. Justice Department as well as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development and hope they respond. It is criminal the way Katrina survivors are treated.”

The writer spoke on behalf of the International Action Center.


Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news DONATE

—————————————————————————————————————


Feedback welcome.

23 March, 2009

Putting A Price On Life

In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people.”
Ruth Harrison
author of Animal Machines

The life of an animal is valuable, because it was born, and is a unique being, alive and with feeling. It should not be about what we can take from that animal, whether eaten or hunted or worn.

Most humans put a higher price on the dead, slaughtered body of an animal than they value the living being.

Feedback welcome.