Important Distinctions Between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare

I keep meaning to post this. This wonderful graphic makes important distinctions between the Animal Rights and Animal Welfare movements. Even though there is a fair amount of overlap between the two movements, their ultimate goals are dramatically different. Of course, this blogger falls into the Animal Rights camp. Until we recognize that animals are their own beings, with their own lives, and we have no right to use them for our own ends, there can be no real peace in the world.

Jonathan Safran Foer, why hast thou forsaken us?

Facebook and the blogosphere are all aflutter with commentary about Jonathan Safran Foer, author of the bestseller Eating Animals, becoming a spokesperson for Buyingpoultry.com, a website that promotes the consumption of "humane and sustainable poultry."

For those who haven't read Eating Animals (a book I've mentioned several times on this blog), it's Safran Foer's nonfiction account of the harsh treatment of animals in factory farms and a damning indictment of the food industry. It has been extremely influential in winning people over to veganism, including actress Natalie Portman, who, in 2009, said the book converted her to a vegan lifestyle. At the time, she wrote:

I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it). 

Jonathan Safran Foer, at the time he wrote Eating Animals (2009).

Eating Animals is a powerful book. It's not the Uncle Tom's Cabin of the Animal Rights Movement (that book hasn't been written yet). But it's persuasive and beautifully written, nonetheless, and it skilfully advances all kinds of sound reasons for adopting a vegan lifestyle, including arguments having to do with ethics, sustainability, the environment and freeing up resources to help feed the hungry around the world. Safran Foer, a young novelist who gained fame as one of the leading Young Turks in the literary world (no small feat in an industry characterized by declining sales and so hard to break into), is a hell of a writer, and he choses each word with passion and conviction.

When Safran Foer endorsed Buyingpoultry.com, which promotes "humane meat" and accountability in the poultry industry (an industry sorely in need of accountability), some vegans and animal rights activists felt deeply betrayed. Safran Foer's promo endorsing Buyingpoultry.com just went up on YouTube the other day (see it above or here). One particularly perceptive critique of Safran Foer's came from one of my very favorite blogs, the Veganomaly. The author described an unforgettable moment when she crossed a line after reading Safran Foer's account:

Several years ago, at about 4AM I got to the part in ‘Eating Animals’ where he shares the stories of the pregnant cows whose calves are discovered inside of them at slaughterhouses. I’m not going to go into more detail here, because it’s the single most upsetting animal-related thing I’ve ever read. Maybe it was being alone in my dimly lit room with an angry rain pounding on the roof. Maybe it’s the way that the dark and the quiet disrobe all the defenses you cloak yourself in during the day. I found myself so sickened, the kind that makes it impossible to think of anything but the suffering you just has described to you. The room spins, your heart unable to take such pain. I remember thinking “We’re told as children that monsters don’t exist, but I’ll bet no one ever asked a farmed animal”. That night, Safran Foer’s work gutted me. A part of me truly died and in doing so, provided a thick, impenetrable layer of emotional cement over my decision to live as a vegan for the rest of my life. (Source) 

The blogger went on to express her disappointment in Safran Foer, asking whether he'd become "nothing more than a particularly clever puppet for the foodies." Foodies, of course, are people like Michael Pollan and other defenders of "happy meat" and "humane omnivorism." They think that it is possible for human beings to engage in "sustainable" production and consumption of animal products in a way that is ultimately compassionate and shows deep respect for animals.

The blogger's discouragement is understandable. At the same time, as the blogger points out, Safran Foer never embraced veganism and did not consider himself a spokesperson for the lifestyle, despite his book winning over numerous converts. Be that as it may, it is hard to comprehend why someone so deeply aware of the suffering, pain and death that millions of animals endure on a daily basis could defend the so-called "ethical" use of animal products.

We can drive ourself crazy asking questions. Did Safran Foer really believe - deep down inside - what he wrote in Eating Animals? Was this just a cynical ploy by a wunderkind who clearly relishes attention to get even more attention? Does his rejection of veganism somehow negate what he writes?

For answers to these questions, maybe we should look at another author, Upton Sinclair, who lived before the emergence of the modern animal rights and vegan movements. His book, The Jungle, was a horrifying indictment of the meatpacking industry, with some famous passages about the inhumane slaughter of pigs. Many online sources claim Sinclair was a vegetarian. I tried to verify this in a biography about Sinclair by my friend and colleague Kevin Mattson. Mattson mentions Sinclair embracing vegetarianism in 1909 after a visit to Harvey Kellogg's sanitarium (Kellogg was the famous cereal maker), but there is no evidence that Sinclair was a vegetarian his whole life. And there is zero evidence that he was a vegan.

Yet The Jungle stands as a great monument that no only critiques the excesses of Gilded Age capitalism, but severely denounces the harsh treatment of animals more passionately than any other classic work of literature that I know of. It has been said (and maybe this is apocryphal) that Teddy Roosevelt promptly became a vegetarian after reading it (although T.R. didn't seem to abandon hunting). Certainly, it moved a lot of people in the early 20th Century to reject eating meat, which happened regardless of Sinclair's own personal diet.

Today, animal rights activists often quote the pig slaughtering scene from The Jungle (I've included it here on my blog) to capture the brutal essence of the slaughterhouse experience. Certainly, Sinclair was no vegan. Nor were a lot of the historical figures that we vegans quote for inspiration. I even found out the other day the other day that a famous Alice Walker quote I often use about animal rights - "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men" - was actually not her opinion, but her summary of a book she was reviewing, and that animal rights people have been quoting her out of context all these years (she's not a vegan; she's not even a vegetarian). Yet Walker's words, even quoted out of context, leave an indelible impression on people who are quietly contemplating the possibility of going vegan.

I bring up these things to make a point. Safran Foer isn't a vegan, that's clear. But his book - while not a masterpiece - is still a damn good one, and with his high profile, he's able to spread his message to a very large audience, one most of us could never hope to reach. It is too bad he doesn't necessarily practice what he preaches. Alas, a lot of writers do not. What is more important is that he has built a monument, in the form of a book, that will touch countless readers for generations to come, and continue to convert a lot of people to veganism. Of how many people can that be said?

Why I Can't Be Vegan Anymore

Don't worry. I'm not giving up on veganism. Neither is the maker of this video, nicknamed Richie Fruitbat. It's an excellent video that refutes some of the myths spread around by former vegans who go back to their omnivore ways.

There is a lot of wisdom in this video. I'm not a raw food vegan like Richie (I don't think I can go quite that far), but I really like what he does with this video and - as he points out - what he says is applicable to raw food vegans and regular vegans alike.

Check out this video, if you get a moment. It's insightful and really good at refuting the anti-vegan myths.

Words of Wisdom

An Extraordinary Public Service Announcement from Manitoba

If you get a moment, please check out this advertisement made by our Canadian brothers and sisters in the struggle about sow stalls, which will air on TV stations in Manitoba. It's a brilliant commercial that drives the point home in 30 seconds. Those who think it doesn't make any difference that so many restaurant chains are now demanding their suppliers get rid of gestation crates should re-think their position. Yes, our goal is to make the murder of pigs illegal. But I firmly believe jettisoning gestation crates takes us a step closer to that goal, because at the root of this move is a recognition of the sentience of these extraordinary beings.

Thank you to the Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals and Canadians for the Ethical Treatment of Food Animals for making this great commercial!

The Canadian Seal Hunt: First the Bad News, Then the Bad News

When it comes to the ultra-violent and sadistic Canadian seal hunt, which do you want to hear first? The bad news? Or the bad news?

First the bad news: During this year's commercial seal hunt, 70,000 harp seals were killed, according to the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries. That number is up substantially from last year's kill figure of 38,000. (Source) This sad news runs contrary to view that the seal hunt is dying due to declining demand for seal fur in other parts of the world.

Senator Mac Harb fought a
good - but very lonely - fight
against Canada's gruesome
and ultra-violent seal hunt.

Now the bad news: In a noble attempt to end this sickening practice, Senator Mac Harb introduced a bill to the Canadian Senate in early may that would end the commercial seal hunt. It was a brave thing to do. It took guts and very strong principles for Senator Harb to do that. 

Not surprisingly, Tweedledum and Tweedledee - whoops, er, uh, I mean, Harb's fellow Conservatives and Liberals in the Senate (the two political parties are virtually identical here in Canada) went after Harb's legislation and torpedoed it like the Lusitania. Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield spoke for most of the senators when he aid:

“Mr. Speaker, this is yet again another attack by a Liberal senator to try to undermine this safe, humane and sustainable hunt that is vital to coastal communities in northern and eastern Canada. Members on this side of the House have been unequivocal in our support for the Canadian seal industry. We will not abandon this industry at the behest of opposition parties or irresponsible and out-of-touch animal rights activists. We will continue to put the livelihood of hard-working Canadian families first.” (Source)

And there is one more piece of bad news (as if we need anymore): The Canadian Television Bureau, in an Orwellian move reminiscent of Eastern Europe during the communist era, banned an anti-seal hunt advertisement made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) from being shown on Canadian television. So much for the people's right to see all sides of the story. This is merely another move by Canadian authorities to put the seal hunt out of sight, out of mind. 

Defenders of the seal hunt insist that it is an essential part of the livelihoods of large numbers of people, and that if it were banned, it would devastate the economy. But I quote from a Canadian Press article: "Darin King told the [Newfoundland] provincial legislature that 680 sealers took part in this year's hunt, which had a total allowable catch of 400,000." Since when have 680 people added up to substantial portion of the nation's economy? 

Pardon the abrupt change in subject, although I'll tie it in shortly to the seal hunt. Cocaine is a vital part of the economy in Latin America. In Andean nations, various Caribbean countries and Mexico, untold thousands rely on the production, movement and distribution of the drug. It's huge. It's in demand. And if the giant narco-captialist system were destroyed, it would devastate entire villages and ruin the livelihoods of families throughout South and Central America. Armies of campesinos go to work in the coca fields, while a massive network of smugglers keeps the drugs flowing north. 

Why do I bring up cocaine? Nobody argues that thousands of Latin Americans are dependent on so-called Cocaine Capitalism for their survival. Perhaps that's one reason why the War on Drugs never really went anywhere. Had it succeeded, it would have left vast areas of Latin America's narco-economy in ruins. 

And yet look at all the lives that cocaine destroys. Look at all the harm it causes. Look at all the hopes it has snuffed out. 

The seal hunt also destroys lives. Some would scoff the comparison I've just made. After all, in the case of the seal hunt, they aren't human lives. 

The prophetic Russian
novelist Leo Tolstoy
(1828-1910) warned
about violence against
animals.

That's a dangerous kind of reasoning though. It was Leo Tolstoy who said, "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." What he meant by that is that the violence we inflict on animals will inevitably metastasize into violence against other human beings. Earlier tonight, I blogged about a murderer named Luka Rocco Magnotta, who started off killing cats and moved on to killing a human being and sending his body parts out in the mail. I'm not comparing sealers, who make a living from the seal hunt, to Magnotta. But what I'm saying is that a society that accepts the "they're just animals" argument is one that is tacitly approving violence. And that violence, in one way or another, is going to come back to haunt us. 

That's more bad news, in case you needed any. 

One Atrocity Leads to Others

Luka Rocco Magnotta, the 29-year-old Canadian
who allegedly sent human body parts in the mail
recently, got his start as an animal abuser.

There's a piece of conventional wisdom that I've always agreed with that goes something like this: People who begin as animal abusers often graduate to heinous crimes involving human beings.

Take 29-year-old Luka Rocco Magnotta, a Canadian who has appeared in Internet porno videos and is now being sought by authorities for allegedly murdering a man, dismembering the torso and mailing various body parts to the offices of the federal Liberal and Conservative parties. 

The story is almost too gruesome and twisted to be true. 

And guess what?

In today's Vancouver Sun, columnist Stephen Maher reports that animal rights activists had been hunting Mangotta down for videos he posted online showing him murdering kittens. Maher writes:

They were motivated by four horrible videos in which a young man gleefully kills kittens. In the first one, in 2010, a young man alleged to be Magnotta suffocates two kittens in a plastic bag. A few weeks later, he posted a related video.

By January of 2011, after frantic online searching, animal lovers tentatively had identified Magnotta as the suspect. They meticulously compared photos that Magnotta posted of himself, identifying jewelry and furnishings that appeared in both, until they were certain they had found the right guy.

They then focused on finding him, something which was made more difficult by the many apparently fake photos Magnotta seems to have posted — using a host of false online identities — showing him in cities around the world.

This news, horrifying as it is, should come as no surprise. 

By the time police raided a Montreal apartment on Tuesday where Magnotta lived, they discovered scenes of human depravity and violence too horrifying to describe. The National Post, a Canadian newspaper I read religiously, actually describes a website called Best Gore that has posted a sickening video purported to be Mangotta cutting up his bound victim, having sex with the body and feeding parts to his dog.

Hard to imagine anything more vile than that.

Magnotta's story is a cautionary tale. There is a banner going around the Internet (especially Facebook) that says, "FAMOUS ANIMAL ABUSERS," and shows pictures of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz and Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick. Below their faces, it says, "THE LINK BETWEEN ANIMAL CRUELTY AND HUMAN VIOLENCE IS INDISPUTABLE." 

I refuse to post that banner here because Vick, unlike Bundy, Dahmer and Berkowitz, is not a serial killer and does not belong with those monsters, despite his involvement in horrific dog fighting matches. Vick's dogfighting ring was broken up by authorities in 2007 and he endured a trial and punishment. Since then, Vick has served a prison term, publicly apologized and lobbied for legislation to create much stricter penalties for those who take part in animal fighting. 

As Vick said last year: "I deeply regret my previous involvement in dogfighting, I'm sorry for what I did to the animals. During my time in prison, I told myself I wanted to be part of the solution, not the problem." (Source) 

I believe Vick's face shouldn't have been added alongside Bundy, Dahmer and Berkowitz. We should forgive those who express genuine, heartfelt remorse about their crimes against animals. And Vick's example shows that not every single animal abuser goes on to become a murderer of human beings.

But take away Michael Vick's face, and the banner is absolutely correct. The link between animal cruelty and human violence is indisputable. My suggestion is to remove Vick from that banner and add the face of Luka Rocco Magnotta, who - if the ghastly stories about him are true (and they appear to be) - has earned a prominent spot among the very worst of the worst of the animal abusers who turned into savage killers of human beings. 

It's All How You Look At It...

Source: Lolcats

Words of Wisdom (with an inspiring video)

Below is a splendid quote from historian, author and activist Howard Zinn (1922-2010). To reinforce the sentiment expressed in the quote, I've also posted an uplifting video about the 2010 rescue of two very sick piglets, Chloe and Coco, by the Australian animal rights groups Uproar (Pig Rescue) and Animal LIberation Victoria. Uproar and ALV nursed these two beautiful beings back to good health, and they now lead happy lives at an Australian animal sanctuary, free from harm. Please read the quote and watch the video. You'll be glad you did.

"To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places--and there are so many--where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don't have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory."

- Howard Zinn

Fear

From Italian photographer Tommaso Ausili's powerful photoessay "The Hidden Death" (2011).