Non-violence

Cruelty and waste, force and destruction, privilege and money are effective power tools today, but their influence is obviously on the wane. There are other, less energy-consuming ways, waiting in the wings. For example - in the world of politics, we only need to practise civil disobedience to make our point effectively; there’s no need for confrontation, hurling abuse or any face-punching. In the theatre it’s the same; satire has more impact than launching into bitter tirades. At home, it wouldn’t be home without the regular stoush, a general stir-up is always better than a family feud. So, if violence is always hovering about us like a bad smell, then non-violence is there to hold our hand.
All the time we’re aggro and making threats to help ‘persuade’ people, we do it for peace … and it doesn’t come across that way at all. Non-violent approaches use patience because it encourages us to think-before-acting. No need to get too intellectual here, but in essence it comes down to using reasoned argument only. Even heated reasoned arguments, but none of that other stuff. The ‘V’ thing. It’s unfortunate that debating opportunities are so rare. If they were as common as they were in ancient days we’d learn how to talk issues through.
For the vegan animal activist, what is the main issue here? Surely being non-violent? And as surely that implies, not eating them by way of a diet. Diet is the child of Principle. They go hand in hand.
If they don’t, it’s understandable. If vegans get too assertive they blow it, but they risk it because in this area there’s such a sense of urgency. And that seems to override such luxuries as patience and non-violence. Yet non-violence is a more effective way to bring about Animal Rights, because it doesn’t bang on about the violence as much as it does about it’s opposite, cool. Non-violent advocacy works through fashion. It doesn’t have to be moral or emotional if that’s not our style. It also doesn’t need to get slushy or ‘animal-lovers-unite’ either. In fact it’s main focal point, the Animal Rights Movement is about them not our need for a comrades club. It’s all about liberation and the consumer getting used to the idea of it not being cool to use animals.
If the idea of animals having rights becomes fashionable, it would be a foolish politician who ignored the writing on the wall and ignored law reform. But for that to happen, for this idea to be in fashion, we as a people need to grasp the implications of this social change, one that is non-violence-led. To be non-violent, even in our most heated protests, when it’s cool it can’t help fall into the present culture. Then, and only then, will numbers grow enough, and quickly enough, to outlaw animal exploitation.
Non-violence allows us to take the heat out of our bad habits, to repair for the long term, but nothing more. It doesn’t do any work for us. Somewhat different to its dark cousin violence, employed so abundantly by the wealthy exploiters. Non-violence hand backs the problem to us, but in ordered form, so that we can work on it, think about it creatively. Repair it. Non-violence is the enemy of thoughtlessness, and ‘wickedly’ friendly to intelligence, enough to pose the big question, “What can be done?”, “What will I do?”
This question might apply to global warming, but it might equally apply to animal ‘warming’. Our debt economically, ecologically and ethically is common talk today. We talk about it like we would if we were referring to a common ‘live now pay later’ mentality. And this is the mantra of the wasting, exploiting animal industrial complex. It all becomes that much more frightening when we see Nature speak to us about global warming. This is principle clashing with diet. It’s the principal ticking off the student for stupid behaviour. Nature rules, okay? The question here is surely, what position do I take, to do what I want to do intelligently; which approach is best for Animal Rights?