Perception walls

1149: 

Trying to alter a person’s perception by ignoring their free-will is like attacking a security safe with a toffee hammer. If you want to open the door, it’s better if you know the combination, and there is no easy way to get through when there’s resistance. It comes down to a basic perception of what animals are (and are for). Domesticated animals are usually seen as valuable resources. It’s morally-okay to ignore the quality of their lives and the conditions in which they live, and to slaughter them for food. The opposite perception is that these same animals are sovereign individuals that should never be harmed for any reason. It might be that ‘your’ view and ‘my’ view are poles apart.

So, if I attempt to break through your perception walls and you won’t let me, where do we go from there? You will do as you will, even though keep pushing you to change. No progress is made. And that’s exactly how animal-eaters will want it to be, with the status quo preserved.

If, however, you’re already questioning how animals are treated, if you’re ready to make changes in your perception, that’s an entirely different matter. However, you could be so easily put off by ‘animal rights activists’ themselves, not by the way we see animals but by a righteousness that seems like a simmering hostility to anyone who doesn’t agree.

Freewill

1148:

Edited by CJ Tointon

*Blog is on holiday until October 3rd. This blog will be the last for a short while, or at least intermittent, depending on access to Wifi.

I need to remind myself that free-will rules. If I’m persuading a free-willed mind to come down on my side (the side of the animals) I must strike a balance between letting ‘the will’ be ‘free’ and trying to give it a shove along. On the ‘shove’ side, I might use a few well known mind-shockers, concerning animal cruelty and human health. They’re either big off-putters or big persuaders. My shove would be suggesting habit-change, specifically shopping changes.

         

My theory is that when people understand that there’s good reason for change, they’ll be more inclined to experiment. Often, we’re most likely to change to keep pace with others who’re changing. It’s a question of being ‘in-fashion’.

As a free-willed person, change is something one ‘does’ voluntarily. If I were to consider making any major change in my life, I think I’d want it to be permanent or at least long term. I don’t think any of us respond too well to intimidation, so if I’m being pushed to change it’s likely not to last, because I’ll never be sure if it was my change or someone else’s. I prefer that all major change springs out of inspiration.

Change should arise quite naturally, as a wish for something not yet current, like cruelty-free food or planet-saving measures. Then change is made in the right spirit. Then, it’s likely we’ll never look back. On the other hand, if I change out of fear, like when the doctor tells you you’re seriously ill and you make a dash for eleventh-hour healthy eating, the reason it might not work is that you’re in terror. It’s as if there’s nowhere for the change to take hold. It’s the same when we’re hurried along by expectation or value judgement. We’re always fighting from a point of negative balance.

Change has to be fresh. Self generated, enthusiastic and with exciting expectations. Passionate change is energy-producing and life-giving. It’s powered from within, so that it’s strong enough to withstand the rough patches, and self propelled enough to keep our free-will intact.

         

Freewill is the great achievement of human development. It’s always open to challenge but it’s our armour against all the terribleness the world puts up against us. If a vegan rebels against the conventions of the day, then the greater the difficulty faced, the greater the strengthening of resolve. It is, in the vegan’s way of seeing things, a most intelligent way to heal the world. But if that seems over-ambitious and therefore makes me want to shout it from rooftops, then perhaps I’d do better to keep my enthusiasm under wraps. I must always bear in mind that free-will can’t be underestimated. It protects free people and gives them confidence to make their own decisions, for better or worse. We can’t afford to dismiss the power of someone’s free-will. For instance, if you find me criticising your food it could easily look like me trying to pick a fight. You’d be within your rights to be defending your free-will. And you’ll want to avoid me and my sort of rudeness in future.

If I want to persuade you to change, I can only suggest it mildly. I have to resist the temptation to try manipulating you. If I truly love my own free-will I must show respect for your free-will too. Whatever I might suggest, in the way of diet-change or the need for Animal Rights, mustn’t trample your freewill.

End blogs posted from Australia

The Animal Rights Position

1147: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

If we want to advocate for animals, we must be committed to vegan eating, clothing and commodities. If this isn’t in place, we won’t be taken seriously.  But once this is established and we also appear to be healthy,  people are more likely to consider our diet and lifestyle to be not such a bad idea after all.

But however convincing we are, there will always be those who hold onto old attitudes in order to avoid making a radical diet change. Among them are people who insist a vegan diet isn’t safe and who want to discover dangers in it so they can be convinced that vegans are foolish to eat that way, or they have dubious motives, or their compassion is not genuine, or they are lying about what is happening to animals.  If they can dismiss what vegans say, it makes them feel much better about themselves.  

But there are lots of people who just don’t care about animals or diets or ethics.  They are either deliberately ignorant or they’re presently making a living out of the animal industries.  They actively influence people to buy animal products and ignore anything connected with animals having 'rights'. … And so it goes… As challenging as this might be for vegans, et al, we can’t waste time trying persuade the unpersuadeable.  We have to move on without getting everyone’s approval for everything we do.

If the cause of Animal Rights isn’t recognised as urgent and essential, it will always be left on the back burner. As vegans, we must keep the issues in high profile.  We must encourage a wide variety of cruelty-free commodities to come onto the market, to make it that much easier for 'cruelty free' replacements to be found. If everyone boycotts animal products, they will be effective in encouraging businesses to reinvent themselves, to accommodate a new market demand.

The Concerned and Passionate Middle-Classes?

1146: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

A lot of people I know have all their bases marked - almost.  They’re environmentally aware, they fight for social justice, they hold healthy political views, they might even sponsor a child in the Third World.  Unquestionably, they’re concerned and passionate people.  They’re comfortable with their image and can hold their own in any conversation.  They enjoy socialising, they don’t overindulge in intoxicants but they can 'let go' when necessary.   They’ve covered every corner and act in an all-round intelligent way - almost.

They can defend their positions because they’ve thought through all the main issues of the day.  They’re neither uninformed, uneducated, nor uncaring.  But within this 'completion', they’ve settled for one glaring compromise - they won’t talk about food!  Well, not in relation to domesticated animals being used for the purpose of food.  Here’s a subject that brings up too many 'impossibles'.

But there's no problem, because (so far) they’ve been able to put that little blip in a 'special box'.  They’ve tucked it away because they can, because everyone does.  Each tacitly agrees that this is one subject which needn’t be gone into.  It doesn’t need to be brought up. It’s the silent subject because everyone eats the same food, wears the same fabric, feeds their pets the same way and shops for whatever is on sale.  It seems that everyone enjoys the convenience of forgetting uncomfortable truths.  They forget that shoes were once the skin of an animal, that wool is meant to keep sheep warm, that milk is meant for calves and that hens are not designed to be caged.  They ignore the questionable ingredients in some foods and plead ignorance of all the other unsavoury details concerning animal husbandry.  And as for misinformation!  It seems they are told no lies because they ask no questions.  They keep all the irritants in that 'special box'.

However, it’s like an itch that you just have to scratch but know if you scratch it, it’ll get worse.  So you try to ignore it.  That's worked well enough up till now.  But lately there’s been a whisper down the line.  It’s faint.  You can barely hear it, but it’s there.  It’s that same itch we have to scratch against our better judgement.  We hope it will go away but there’s a feeling  that it won’t.  It’s the unexpectedness we most fear.  One single encounter, one single embarrassing comment can collapse our cool.

The masses are nervous that their well educated, socially advantaged, middle-class persona is beginning to fray.  All it needs is for someone to mention, "Sorry, can’t eat that, I’m a vegetarian".  They think they've  got the edge on you then and the shock wave is enough to accuse you of not being quite 'up-to-date'.  And that’s just for vegetarians!  Imagine what they feel when you inform them that you're a VEGAN?

They turn to the usual defences, but ridiculing won’t work any longer.  Saying it’s too unhealthy will no longer wash.  And the laid-back, hedonist defence simply appears cold hearted.  If they try to ignore the matter, it still won't go away.  We all know what’s happening on today’s farms, not to mention the slaughterhouses.  The gruesome details have been documented and televised many times.  Obviously this issue, Animal Cruelty, can’t be swept under the carpet. We don’t live in that sort of age any longer.  These days everything is up for grabs, everything is discussable, nothing is tabooed.

  

It’s only a matter of time before it becomes too embarrassing not to engage in this debate about animal cruelty.  But, alarm!  Once the lid is lifted, out flies everything (well, almost everything).  Food, cosmetics, shoes, treats, pets, social lifestyles, laid-back attitudes to life - the lot.

  

The fact is, the majority of us are so reliant on animals for so many things, that in order to make them available for our food and clothing, these animals have to be exposed to unimaginable acts of cruelty.  If we want to maintain our image as concerned and passionate people who can think for ourselves, we have to face a reality check.  If we want to remain in control of our own lives, we must realise that Animal Rights reform  has the capacity to turn our whole lives upside down (in a good way)!

Up against Human-centred Causes

1145: 

If you became a vegan some years back, it’s worth considering how it might be harder today, in one way.  Today there are more competing pressures on people to change.  We are so much more aware of dangerous trends in our world, and therefore so many issues about which we’re supposed to have an informed opinion.  Today, it’s important to find a way of prioritising our concerns, and see which seem practical and which too idealistic.  Perhaps our own self-inflicted demands are becoming overwhelming.  How do we assess our own strengths and weaknesses?  How do we develop ‘the self’.  Self-development is almost an industry today.

Animal Rights is one cause amongst many causes vying for attention, each cause being as important as the other.  But the animal issue is handicapped by being up against human-centred causes.  Public perception says that we vegans care less about people and more about animals.  Some do, perhaps.  But most of us speak to the need for ‘liberating’ our fellow humans from their mind-sets about animals, before animals can be liberated.  But that’s difficult to get across, especially since, weighted against us, is the customer who won’t take animals seriously, since they want to eat them.  Multiply this customer by about seven billion, and you see the scale of the problem vegans face, convincing people to leave animals alone.

We need the support of many ‘customers’, to put enough pressure on legislators to pass laws, to bring an end to animal abuse (that is, animal farming).  To pull this off, veganism has to appear very attractive, meaningful and the way of the future.  And those of us who are promoting a vegan view must be squeaky clean.  No room for vegetarian compromising, since you can’t be a little bit vegan, if you want to act as a role model. 

Public speaking 3 – The Dairy Issue

1144: 

Ostensibly, we might have been invited to speak on this particular subject (“Going Vegan”) but in order to speak freely and say what we want to say fully, we need to get past the defence barriers.  We need to overcome the expectation that we’ll be ‘giving offence’. That needs to be squashed soon after we start talking, in order to win the permission of the audience for opening up this particular taboo.

Talking about abattoirs and meat eating is relatively straight forward, because the audience is likely to be interested in vegetarianism; it’s likely many are already vegetarians.  But as soon as we start to talk about dairy cows, people think we’re going too far.  They’ll know we are about to attack ice cream, chocolate and having milk in coffee, etc.  This is where I think it’s a good idea to preface what we are going to say by exonerating them.  By explaining that most people are unaware of what happens on the dairy farm, that most people believe ‘dairy’ is nutritionally good for them, and that almost all people use milk products.  I’d be prefacing my talk with all this, to ease-in the most difficult-to-swallow information I need to get across.

It’s only when the ground has been prepared that we can talk about the reality of ‘the dairy misconception’.  And let’s face it, what we’re mentioning here is daunting.

         

Something we have to do here is to go beyond the words we’re about to use (in explaining the reasons we have for ‘going vegan’).  It’s in the tone of our voice, its evenness, it’s neutrality, it’s invitation to the audience to feel comfortable about asking questions.  Using the right body language here is all important.  The voice must never be shrill, the hands need to be kept still and eye contact maintained all the time. (Frequent reference to notes at this delicate stage is not recommended - the thread of the talk should be committed to memory as far as possible).

To people who love their ice cream and butter and other often-used dairy products, why would they want to listen to anything that will turn them off their favourite foods?  And what will make them sit on the edge of their seats and be attentive?  It’s not as if they are reading a book, which can be put down and picked up again later.  This is direct interaction, between speaker and audience.  (Ideally!)

So, in order not to seem severe or seem to be making value judgements, it’s best to keep ourselves out of the way, and become almost like a book.  We should be advisory but never finger-wagging.  We should make a show of understanding a person’s struggle about all this, and admit that giving up dairy products might not be easy.

It goes down well to admit how one made mistakes, took backward steps, gave in to temptations, etc.  A speaker who is vulnerable, instead of holier-than-thou, is more approachable.  Eventually, the hard facts need to be spoken about, how the cows suffer, how the calves are shot soon after birth, the foreshortened, exhausted life of the dairy cow, the nutritional harm of using milk-products.  However we bring together the relevant information, it’s what comes before it that makes the difference between outright rejection or the acceptance of an audience.  

Public speaking 2 - Tone

1143: 

I think it’s important to tell it like it is, not pretend that becoming an activist for animals or taking on a vegan lifestyle is either easy or difficult.  Honesty about this particular matter is appreciated – to get across what one might be letting oneself into.

Whoever we are talking to, whether meat eaters (about their shopping choices) or farmers (about their animals) or teachers or students (about veganism), everything we say should eventually come back to our own attitude towards animals.  We all have a strong connection with animals, whether we eat them or try to protect them.  For our part, vegans need to talk about animals as if every hen, pig or fish are irreplaceable individuals.  In that way we can talk about them as if they are different to us but equal to us, since they, like us, each deserve the right to a life.

         

Most people don’t think that way; most consider animals to be easily replaceable, expendable items.  It’s our job, at a gathering like this, to introduce a different concept, by talking about animals as if they really mattered!  But how is this done?

How do we bring a listening audience round to this attitude?  Most people condone the use of animals, they support the Animal Industries, they eat them, and they can probably defend their own approach to ‘animals’.  Even though we strongly disagree, it’s important to let everything be aired.  No opinion should be belittled.  Indeed, we should encourage any audience member who wants to, to speak with the courage of their convictions.

But it’s me giving a talk, conducting the direction it takes.  I prefer to welcome interruption to what I’m saying, welcome disagreement, listen to anyone’s stories and opinions, let people ask questions.  This makes the ‘talk’ less of a lecture and more of an open discussion.  But it hasn’t got to be a loose-ended, anything-goes conversation.  It’s a public address after all, where spontaneous openness isn’t allowed to continue indefinitely.  A talk always returns to the prepared script, but at least, at some stage in ‘the talk’, I would want to give people the impression that it is of benefit to me, by my learning and listening, as well as speaking.

Let’s say that I’m speaking to a group of people seated in a hall.   It’s my job to create the right atmosphere, rather like there would be if we were sitting around a kitchen table, in discussion.   Because this is an intimate subject, full of contentious issues, it needs a certain intimacy, even between the most vocal adversaries.  The success of any public talk comes down to the tone of voice of the speaker.  In the end, it’s the atmosphere the speaker creates, that people take home with them, which helps them think-about and digest what has been talked about. 

Public Speaking - being well prepared

1142: 

If we are speaking about Animal Rights in public, we need to establish how the audience is - hostile or warm.  We need to be ready to adjust our tone accordingly.  They might be friendly at first and then go cold on us if we start to become boring or start haranguing them.  They may be hostile at first, until we can show we are friendly and have something useful to say.  But whether friendly or unfriendly the audience isn’t under any obligation to stay, so it’s best NOT to lecture them.

         

If we want to win an audience over and hold their interest, we need to encourage them to think seriously about what we are saying.  To do that, there’s nothing better than showing we’ve spent time preparing the talk, with videos, pictures, examples and stories.  Out of respect for this unknown group of people, I’d like them to think I’d gone to some trouble, to prepare a variety of approaches, to accommodate the message I’m trying to get across.

My first aim would be to make it impossible for the audience to be bored - this being a subject which is difficult and confronting (and ‘serious’), my collection of information and ideas should move along at a lick.   Importantly, there need to be examples of how I personally experienced the transition to veganism and animal rights.  This is not to show my wonderfulness or self-discipline, indeed quite the opposite.  We lose no face by admitting personal difficulties we might have had, because they are probably the same ones as those being envisaged by each member of the audience, as they listen to us.

         

The content of the talk might consist of information about animal exploitation and about the implications of a vegan lifestyle - standard facts - but if we want to hold an audience’s attention, one thing must be established early on; they need to know how long we are going to be talking.  By keeping the talk to 20-30 minutes and by reminding listeners that questions and comments are going to be asked for (and by keeping a timer ticking along beside us, to remind ourselves how much time we have left) the talk is never allowed to become an open-ended ramble.  Any audience, to such a talk as this, is effectively trapped in their seats.  I therefore try to keep this in mind throughout.  And this takes precedence over everything I want to say.  On no account should one ever become excruciating for an audience.

Winning ears

1141: 

Non-vegans represent the vast majority of humans: vegans represent a minuscule percentage.  Numbers of vegans are not yet increasing rapidly enough to make veganism fashionable.  Vegans don’t stand out enough as being smarter, kinder, more powerful, more creative or more persuasive than anyone else, not noticeably anyway.  There’s nothing much, other than appearing more healthy, that looks attractive about us.  If we have fewer self-destructive habits or better ethics they don’t stand out enough to catch people’s attention.

         

If vegans want others to be drawn to their principles, they need to be able to talk inspiringly, that is, use arguments that are watertight.  For that we must be beyond reproach ourselves.  We have to be squeaky clean (read genuine).  And we don’t need to go around telling everybody, “I’m ‘vegan”, not because people don’t need to know but because it looks as though we are fishing for compliments.

         

If I can down-play this side, I might just put myself in a better position to have my say, without needing to press my point too hard.  And it’s good if I appear to be holding-back.  I’m less likely to be identified as a religious zealot trying to convert people.

Unless I’m asked, I’d prefer to say little.  I’ll volunteer information on request and make my answers specific to the question asked.  I try to ease up on the hype, and in that way stand a better chance of winning ears. 

Representing a central argument

1140: 

I hope I say what I mean, speak without being patronising, and advocate on behalf of ‘the voiceless’, without making value judgements.  That’s the aim anyway, but easier said than done!

Ideally, if you and I are on a mutual-regard footing, we’ll each feel freer to speak our minds and consider what it is that we each feel strongly about.  Ideally, you and I are simply chatting about something which interests us.  There needn’t be any accusations and no need for any defensiveness.  I can be sure to lose you if I seem unfriendly or fake or aggressive in any way.

Over this matter of treating animals with more respect (as in not-eating them, at the very least!) people usually take the easy way out.  They don’t want to think about it, and particularly don’t want to talk about it.  I’ll try to jolly you along.  Get you chatting, as if this were simply an interesting subject of conversation.  However, you can’t be easily fooled about my intentions.  You’re likely to think I’m just trying to get into your head.

If this subject is to be tackled at all, just by starting to discuss it, most people will prefer to inch into it at their own rate, not at mine.  If I start out with some confronting statement, you’ll clam up.  No one likes being thrown in at the deep end.  You don’t want to be made to look uncompassionate.  You don’t want to be made to feel foolish either.

         

It’s important that you see me as I want you to see me; I want to convince you that I’m not a people-hating vegan, or someone who favours animals over people.  I don’t want you to see me as being so dazzled by my own righteousness that I can’t see other people’s good sides.  At all costs, I don’t want to give you any reason to dislike me, rubbish me, and therefore be able to rubbish my arguments.  After all, this is not about me, it’s about the abuse of animals.  I, like other vegan animal advocates, am simply representing an argument, and I must do whatever I can to act as a channel for those arguments.  I must keep my personal opinions to myself.  If you are willing to play ball, by entering into a discussion, it’s not up to me to turn it into a battle of wits.  The arguments are there to be aired, not won. 

Giving ground to gain ground

1139: 

Abstaining from doing something wrong is not necessarily ‘doing good’ or being a good person.  If there’s benefit from abstaining from wrong-doing, it’s no more, for example, than you benefitting from my not robbing you; I’m not ‘good’ because I’m not being a thief.  Therefore, when it comes to being vegan we must regard that as the norm, even though the majority are in the habit of being ‘thieves’.  My non-thief nature isn’t necessarily anything to do with goodness.

As soon as vegans act as if they are ‘good’, or we imply a greater goodness by way of our love for animals, or worse, start talking about our own goodness, we stray into dangerous territory.  People understandably think we’ve got tickets on ourselves, and there’s none uglier than the do-gooder.

To the outsider, ‘being vegan’ might seem like self punishment for the sake of appearing good.  Our own animal-liberation focus mustn’t appear as if we are trumpeting our own wonderfulness, in case people think we’re ‘in it’ for the wrong reasons.

If Animal Rights advocates want to promote a high ideal, there can be no boasting or criticising others for being unprincipled, especially if they’re simply mindless consumers.  By the same token, it’s the consumer who bears the responsibility for animal cruelty as much as the people who directly instigate it.

Instead of laying guilt trips on people, for what they eat, wear, condone, etc., it might be better not to show our hand so openly (or reveal our thoughts) but instead stick to the business at hand - mentioning what is happening to animals and assume (even if we know otherwise) that people know very little about ‘food’- animals or that they are too shy to admit how little they know.

Our aim, apart from keeping a personal low profile, should be to talk about animal issues without seeming to want to convert, or without trying to spook people.  Our aim is surely to get a better reception from those who are initially opposed to what we have to say.

If I can give out one thing, it might be to let others see that I accept where you’re at, even though it’s obvious that I would like you to be moving towards something better.  If people can feel us trying to consider their feelings, they won’t mind what we have to say.  If they can feel from us, that ‘we’re on their side’, and that we want to give others the ‘benefit-of-the-doubt’, that will always seem like non-judgement.  Our interest, at this point, might not have to be about what people are doing now but what they could be doing later.  We should be focusing on their potential, wanting only that others are starting to consider certain things which they might not have been considering before.

This looks like an overly mild approach to meat-eaters, but by our addressing each other with respect, there’s likely to be a better mutual reception and a more honest reciprocation.  There’s a better chance that each of us will be more willing to listen, and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

The greater good & feeling good

1138: 

By avoiding animal products, by becoming vegan, it’s likely that we’ll come to feel good about our decision.  The stomach feels more comfortable, conscience lighter and brain sharper.

But this question of ‘good’, what is it?  And especially what does it feel like when we are doing things ‘for the greater good’?

We might be altruistically-intentioned, not acting for our self only. Maybe we miss out on some immediate pleasure that we want. But we’re sowing seeds that are going to flower later - however, working for the greater good might mean that the results don’t show up till after we are dead.

It might be like that with Animals Rights.  Perhaps it aims at an end-product, in the form of a set of changes taking place in the human psyche, and later being enacted on a mass scale.  Animals-being-liberated might not come about until certain other preliminaries are put into place. And it’s likely those will take time - again, perhaps after many of us are dead.

So, today is not about impatiently chasing change but about laying foundation stones for future change.  From the point of view of ‘The Greater Good’, it’s essential we act now for the sake of the future.  The altruistic element of that is both selfless and selfish, the latter, so we can start to ‘feel-good’ about ourselves from now on.

If we’re not interested in long term planning, it probably means that we don’t care about what’s coming (“I won’t be around to see it”).  We won’t be interested in the concept of altruism.  It will be meaningless.  Instead, self-image will be more important - seeming to be good.  We might think the show is the important thing. But it’s fairly obvious to the onlooker that by displaying ‘goodness’ at every conceivable opportunity we’re merely bragging.   

At the other extreme is a person with genuine humility who does, overall, a much better job.  But in the end, it’s the depth of our commitment (to being good) which will eventually be tested.  The safeguard is anonymity.  By not boasting we’re safer, but less visible.  That might not sit well with the activist, with their need to protect animals and make a show of their abstentions and passions.  They might choose to take a more antagonistic, direct approach.  Their passion is connected to deep emotions, like outrage, compassion, sensitivity, hatred, being right and being righteously confident.  But by taking the high moral ground, we can’t necessarily take ourselves out of the picture.  And that will be obvious to those we are trying to impress, and it’s likely that we’ll achieve the very opposite of what we want, to win their sympathy for our point of view. 

Pass the biscuits

1137: 

If we can’t drop animal products how can we be peacemakers?  When we go shopping for animals or sit down to eat them we encourage the assault on them.  We waste our own chances of happiness, having this perpetually on our conscience.  We waste the happiness of the animals too.  From their point of view, we humans are their only hope.  If some of us aren’t willing to defend them, they’re lost.  By buying slaughterhouse products we effectively play a central role in the slaughterhouse process.

The production of the egg has come to represent the worst of this violence, in the form of mass consumer compliance.  By taking no notice of the ingredient lists on packaging, when I buy a packet of biscuits, made with ingredients that include egg, I’m complaint with the caging of hens.  As a biscuit eater I might not want to know about egg-laying hens and their circumstances, only wanting something as simple as ‘a biscuit’.  But whether I know the ingredients’ background or not, the fact is my biscuit contains something that can’t be justified.  The egg used in the biscuit recipe undoubtedly comes out of the battery system.  The biscuit manufacturer isn’t concerned about using ethical raw materials.

         

Egg production – most people wouldn’t approve of the current system, not up-front anyway.  But if an egg is used and we buy it in whatever form, we compromise what, otherwise, has made us into caring people.  How pathetic, to be seduced by a biscuit! 

Vegans starting out

1136: 

When I decided to do something, to protest, to speak out, to become vegan, the first thing I noticed was that my own self esteem received a boost, and that felt good.  But then I thought others would notice my change and want to follow suit.  No way!!  Not that easy!  I’d have to be patient, while waiting for the penny to drop with others.

It seems that you can’t just go up to people and suggest they change.  Oh no. There’s no quick fix guarantee for shifting mind-sets.  It interests me that people seem to want to stay asleep over animal issues on the pretext of not wanting it to lead to vegetarian food restrictions.  And that thought is made darker by the fear of committing a long slow suicide-by-vegetable.  They’ll conveniently see it as a safety issue.

When any of us contemplate a vegan lifestyle we probably consider the obstacles - the mind prohibits taking such a radical step.  I kept asking if it was safe?  Those before me said it was, books said so, eminent doctors said it was safe with a few provisos which I took notice of.  Practising vegans read, talk, question, weigh up and conclude that the risk is worth taking.  Today it isn’t such a risk at all, since so many others have gone before and proved the ‘preposterous idea’ is not so preposterous at all.  In fact a vegan diet takes you to a different level of safety and health, and the abundance of energy makes it extra convincing and that much easier, to ‘go vegan’ without worry.

In the mid 1940's, when all this started, they were experimenting to find out if it were possible to physically survive on plants.  It sounded bizarre and dangerous at the time, but it turned out not to be so.  Things today are very different to what they were in 1943.  We’ve made great advances in understanding nutrition, and we have food choices which up until recently people didn’t have.

The reason why vegan thinking and vegan eating and vegan clothing is so important is that vegans are showing others that physical survival is possible without recourse to animals.  Those of us on vegan diets, for instance, have found remarkable improvements in health and well being.  And while vegan diets are not a complete panacea, by way of such a radical change in our food regime, we move one step ahead in self development.  But food, however good it is, won’t necessarily bring us any closer to improving our feelings for others, for loving them more or bringing us closer to non-separation from others.  But, it’s a start.  It does install the first plank of non-violence into my understanding of myself.  By avoiding all that nasty animal food, I’m avoiding the nastier side of my nature coming out.

Carnivore Comforts

1135: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Unless we all leap forward into "herbivorous-ness" now, animals will continue to be assaulted.  Humans will risk anything for the sake of comfort food, none of which is nutritionally necessary or unable to be replaced by plant-based alternatives.  Clothing can be made with plant or synthetic fibres.  Yet some people are locked firmly into old habits.  They still go for animal-based products and get sucked in by the immense variety of stuff they can choose from.  It seems they can't resist the "pop-foods" the Animal Industries churn out.  But for that little luxury, the animals pay dearly.

         

Unless we’re naturally kind people or we’ve developed an ethical core, there’s nothing much to stop us going along with the crowd. We know that animals can’t hit back so it seems safe to abuse them.  We do it because we can 'get away with it'.  And it’s true, the animals can’t hit back, but there’s a sting in the tail. Their 'edible' body parts are toxic by way of saturated fat,  high protein and adrenaline (cortisone-like secretions and steroids) which stimulate fear pheromone production.  So the meat coming out of abattoirs from terrified animals results in poor health and poor vitality and this is how the animals 'hit back'.  It’s like Montezuma’s revenge.  We eat animals to feel good, but we end up feeling NOT so good.  And the many decades of eating body parts of executed animals (as well as their milk and egg secretions) makes for the various illnesses we humans suffer and is the just returns for what we've put the animals through.  Our penalty for pretending ignorance.

         

Until recently, the mass population had not been made aware that there was any danger in eating animal foods either from an ethical or health perspective. We’ve just been mindlessly exploiting animals and using them  as an available resource.  We’ve been doing it for aeons because each generation has mindlessly copied what previous generations have done. There's no evidence that people ever did relate to animals differently.  No evidence of any concerted attempt to live non-violently, to show respect for animals by leaving them alone.

This is the ugly side of human nature.  This pragmatic, utilitarian attitude to those weaker than ourselves. We’ve learned how to take advantage of anything that can’t fight back and animals have always been easy pickings. We’ve learnt how to catch them, keep them captive, imprison them in cages and crates which restrict their movement, efficiently breed them, extract whatever we can from them and, finally, execute them.  We design execution chambers to make the killing more timesaving for us and then say that the animals are 'killed humanely'!   And then - for chrissakes - we EAT them!  What sort of relationship is that between fellow sentient beings????

         

The way animals are treated today is so sad, it makes my head spin to think about it.  And 'thinking' is the key here, the lack of which leads most poor suckers to the abattoir door to get their fix.  There they willingly allow large amounts of money to be extracted from them, to pay for what is essentially a dangerous substance and one which is definitely replaceable with more humane and healthy alternatives. 

Food attractions in the Western world

1134:

In my early twenties I noticed some unexpected deteriorations in my body, and I put this down to lifestyle abuses, particularly my crap diet, specifically my use of animal products.  I began to follow my instincts, which proved, forty years later, to be spot on.  At the time I couldn’t admit it, that my eating habits could so badly cloud my judgement, but now I see they did.  I first stumbled across macrobiotics which led me away from crap food.  And that drew me on, towards a plant-based regime.  My taste for this sort of food grew, particularly when I found out about how extensive was the cruelty to animals on farms.  

As I got over my cravings for ‘nursery teas’ and rich dinners and snack treats I became grateful for having ‘stumbled’ on a more intelligent food regime, and at a relatively early age.  These days many younger people are introduced to plant-based regimes and there are even kids who’ve been vegan from birth.  I’m glad I didn’t leave it too late to realise that something of my vitality and sharpness was always going to be affected by the ‘ageing process’.  Alarm!! 

         

When I was much younger, I’d been school-teaching and noticed that many of the kids came from overseas, and two things struck me, two things seemed to be linked - many of them suffered from some level of malnutrition and many of them had lost self-confidence because they were so weedy and unhealthy.  In their new country there was plenty of food, but I saw their condition take on a new alarming dimension, since they were now being poisoned by crap Western food, and too much of it.  When their bodies bloated out it was another blow to their self-confidence.  Then, as they learnt about animals on prison farms, I suppose it added to their sense of shame.  In a short space of time I saw children, honourable souls, go downhill - and all because they wanted to be part of their new Western world, by eating our crappiest foods.

         

Because of our attachment to animal-based food, and for generation after generation of growing accustomed to using it, we’ve developed into unhealthy and hard-hearted adults.  In the flush of becoming an independent adult, we’ve grown accustomed to our own indifference to the animals we’re eating and the food-addictions we are  developing.  

Don’t consider the feelings of animals if you want to enjoy your meaty- food

1133:

Why are people so hostile towards the idea of respecting animals?  Perhaps because it means losing the animals-content in our diet, and that’s down to the pleasures we associate with certain delicious dishes.  We rich Western people do love our rich foods.

In comparison, a vegan food regime looks as dry as dust.  To some it must seem close to a living death, in which case it follows that there’s an understandable hostility towards Animal Rights.  “Damn these vegans, who want to close down abattoirs and animal farms, leaving everyone without their food pleasures”.

Our global omnivorous society wants to protect its animal food supply chain.  We have a massive industry, employing millions of people and supporting billions of customers.  Almost every single person on the planet is attracted to at least some of their produce.  Taste-wise it works.  Perception-wise animal foods are still considered good for health - “Meat makes us strong”. Importantly, we’ve been taught that our human strengths keep us in the dominant position, in Nature’s hierarchy.  

We use animals: they don’t use us.  And this nod to self preservation and comfort is reinforced at mealtimes, in every corner of the world, confirming a sense of food-normality, which in itself protects us from feeling guilty about the way we are using animals.  We believe that animal-foods are natural and eating them is normal, and that there’s no need to talk about it any further.

         

The subject of farm-animal protection is tabooed, for obvious reasons.  If you want to eat animals you can’t at the same time want to protect them.  Obviously the guaranteeing of food supplies is important, and therefore there’s no need to throw too much light on farming practices.  Nor is there any need to point out the unhealthy consequences of eating animal protein.  Even doctors have a vested interest in nutritional misinformation, otherwise they’d be having to prescribe plant-based diets to their sick patients.

But with the advent of the Internet where information can’t be censored, almost everyone can break through the misinformation barriers and decide for themselves how best to eat.  Today, in spite of many obstacles, things are changing, and that ties in neatly with a trend towards peace, empathy and compassion.

These days ‘eating normally’ is dangerous, since our hospitals have never had so many patients with food-related illnesses.  Those who have bothered to inform themselves about the poisonous effects of normal food, are saying to themselves, “Avoid the normal and trust your instincts”. 

Guardian Nature

1132: 

I don’t think humans hate animals; I don’t think many people are innately violent; I don’t think we have a blood lust.  Most people don’t want to be cold-hearted or hard-nosed.  However, a farmer, running a sheep or cattle property might disagree.  If they weren’t cold-hearted they couldn’t kill their animals and if they weren’t hard-nosed they’d be put out of business by their competitors.  Two very different perspectives here.  Perhaps it’s always going to be us versus them.

I’m more concerned with the millions of customers who spend a considerable amount of money each week supporting the Animal Industries.  It’s possible that they know no other way of living than buying those products that everyone else uses and which are legally sold in shops.  Privately, they might want more out of their food-life than just meat and animal by-products but don’t know that any alternatives to ‘real-food’ exist.  They’ve never learnt any other way of eating or cooking.  But, is it possible that they might like life to take on a more interesting dimension? To find out who they are and the purpose of their existence.

         

I suspect most people could identify themself with being a helping-guarding type, because they realise that, when other humans are in need, that they do help where they can; we are generally well suited to being guardians of each other.  And in certain ways we are exemplary explorers, and these feature are what we are most proud of being and what we know we’re best at.  

You might say that humans are born rescuers, protectors and ‘explorers’.  And, at heart, most of us are wanna-be farmers too, or at least we have a strong link to the land.  We share that same urge that the farmer has, to provide food, make survival possible and discover new things.  We’re naturally creative.  We’re NOT, by nature, destructive.  Nor do we like the idea of being jailers or procurers.

All the more reason why with so many people who are currently either animal-farming and/or animal-consuming, we seem like pimps for a bunch of enslaved prostitutes.

         

I doubt if too many people like being part of an animal-destruction industry.  I doubt if we relish betraying innocent, peace-loving creatures.  I’m sure we dislike the idea of tricking animals into believing we care for them, only to then put a gun to their heads.  I’m sure the idea of all that sits heavily on our collective conscience.

         

The alternative is still only a potential for most people.  It wouldn’t be difficult for most people to be drawn towards a more ethical form of husbandry, in order to provide food and clothing and other basic needs, whilst remaining protective and empathetic to Nature.

If we had an ethical food industry, only plant-based foods would be available, crap food wouldn’t be sold and Animal Rights would be universally appealing.  We’d have no trouble empathising with those animals who are presently in-trouble.  We would support anyone producing decent food and farmers would be pillars of the community. 

Adversaries

1131:

1.       “What’s worse than vegan food? Imagine just eating that. I can’t stand vegans with their self-righteousness.  Vegans set impossible targets and feel superior to anyone who can’t meet them”.

2.       “What’s worse than carnivore food?  Imagine eating meat.  It’s their self-satisfaction that’s so ugly, their dominant, meat-eating, cleverest-being-on-the-planet attitude”.

         

These two perceptions always clash but in a way, the whole subject of what we eat and why we eat it is a private affair.  It’s no one else’s business ... and yet, speak about it we must.  Well, I must, but not to convince anyone that my view is more valid than another’s view, merely to explore attitudes and engage others in dialogue.

I’ll start the ball rolling.  With something simple and confronting, to see how it goes down.  I’ll say, ‘no-touch-animals’; humans are not to be trusted around animals because they always take advantage of them.  My bait is laid, and it’s meant to be taken.  If it meets with no reaction then I’ll leave it there and take it no further.  I’ve no intention of scaring people off, so although this simple statement is a challenge, I’d immediately follow that by acknowledging that this is a tricky subject, and to say what I have to say without any judgemental tone creeping into my voice.

If my ‘adversary’ does respond, I’ll be open to what they have to say, not rush in to oppose, but try to consider their view.  My aim would be to establish a rolling-along-manner, sweeping away judgemental-litter as I go along.  I’ll do anything to encourage any sort of dialogue.

It takes a lot of courage for the adversary to challenge some of our basic arguments, so any attempt on their part should be encouraged, and certainly not squashed out of hand.  Each one of us is at a different stage of development in terms of attitudes to controversial subjects.  Nothing is gained by keeping our views held in. Nothing achieved by not respecting each other’s private spaces.    

Shopping for food

1130:

Meet me in the shopping aisle on Saturday morning.  That’s where I make my big decisions for the week.  This is where I decide how to spend my money.  This is where my food choices are based on taste sensation or ethical considerations.  Many items on my list are routine items like oil, peppercorns, rice, marmalade, etc.  Other items involve a particular kind of choice based on good and bad – is it fattening, is it full of sugar, is it from animals, is it environmentally sound?  Especially when it comes to popular foods, this is where I can either use my money to foster cruelty-free products or spend it on ethically questionable items. 

We all know food-seduction, and we’re all drawn to foods that trigger taste-excitement in us.  These are foods which cause biochemical effects not unlike those of addictive drugs, foods which are not necessarily healthy but which we find hard to resist, especially when in commercially well-known forms, like the sugar content of chocolate, the richness of cheese or the blood and texture of meat.  Perhaps instead of engaging our brains we let our taste buds do the choosing.  As we walk down those familiar aisles, we almost salivate at the thought of certain foods.  We visualise a meal for which we are about to buy the ingredients.

         

If you deliberately go cruelty-free shopping it’s another story.  If you set out to replace animal-based foods with plant-based foods, or if you are looking for shoes and clothing, and replace leather and wool with non-animal footwear and fabrics, again, it’s another story.  There’s an obvious ethical component involved.

Of course, this whole process is made more difficult by the way products are so seductively packaged.  If you can get past that then you are faced with the printing on the packaging which lets you know what you are buying, and that print is often so small that you can’t read it, so some of us have to remember to take our glasses when shopping.  Vegans need to be able to read the fine print on the ingredients list, so we can tell if it contains animal products, and some of these are hidden behind unfamiliar words like  ‘whey’, ‘gelatine’, ‘collagen’, ‘albumin’, ‘casein’, ‘isinglass’, etc.  If we can get past these hurdles, then shopping is a matter of what or what not to boycott ... and if we do boycott, then it’s a matter of trying to find an alternative product.

         

Mainly, when shopping for food, we often hit an ethical dilemma, either we please the body or we decide to ‘screw the animals’.  Who’d have thought something as ordinary as shopping could pose such a test?

Taste buds and will power

1129: 

When I decided to dip my toes into ‘the chilly waters’ of a plant-based food regime, I started putting soy milk on my corn flakes, began to cook tofu and falafel. I was experiencing a taste bud revolt. But was I missing something? Did I have cravings?

I found that this doubt lasted all of about five minutes, after which I realised it was all going to be okay - the vegan-food bit.  The chilly waters were only in my head.  I was fearing the unknown.  I was resenting denying myself products which others would still be enjoying.

           

To get over the initial glitches, and particularly to get used to new tastes, I had to use bog-standard will power, to get over being afraid of turning back to familiar foods.  And I had to be patient, because after a life time cultivating my taste buds, they weren’t taking kindly to being re-educated overnight.

Once this taste-test was settled, once I saw for myself that food-matters weren’t going to be so much of a problem after all, then the main hurdle was out of the way.  Then my will power didn’t have to be focused so much on food, and I could concentrate on the whole cruelty-to-animals thing.  

I think this is the most powerful persuader. I liked what Sam de Brito said in his article in last Sunday’s paper (I always avoided vegans - now I am one).  He said, “You feel like you have come upon genocide everyone is trying to hide and ignore. And you can no longer keep quiet”.

The curtain really falls on old familiar foods, as they seem greyer and uglier. One is drawn to subtler food experiences - eating whole foods, and foods that aren’t so sugary, salty, bloody, fattening or rich.  One is experiencing for the first time, new flavours, new textures, and seeing food through ethical eyes adds to the overall enjoyment of eating.

Food, and later clothing, come to serve as a daily springboard to a potentially more wonderful world which is coloured by vegan principles. You probably do feel a bit righteous, but it’s mainly a feeling of relief, in no longer being part of the animal holocaust. 

Decisions and tests

1128: 

There are now many young people aware of Animal Rights and they’re adopting ethical positions towards their food. As well, these people are not so keen on being poisoned every day.  As they begin to switch to more plant-based foods in their diets a certain truth is dawning on them - what’s not attractive about food that is high energy and not fattening?  But it’s obviously more than that.  With this ‘gentler generation’, it’s animal cruelty that does it for them. It’s the clincher.  It isn’t easy to forget about today’s animal farming and the generating of animal-based junk food.

Enter the private mind of such a young person, questioning the conventional ways that have been taught them:

          Thinks … would I deliberately eat second rate food?

          Thinks …would I deliberately hurt animals?

          Thinks …would I want to support a whole industry dedicated to hurting animals and producing crap?

          Thinks ... it’s my business, my food and my clothing.  It’s my choice to dress as I wish and eat what I like.  

But everyone is attracted to rich, yummy foods.  Boycotting seventy percent of food products on sale makes life that much more difficult.  For the dedicated omnivore it’s easier to indulge.  It’s easier to dismiss the difficult questions because everyone else does.

Thinks: we all have our ‘little sins’, where we give in to our weaker side, even though we know it’s wrong, and in this case the wrong being helping to hurt animals.

Question: Either I don’t give a stuff about animals (and I continue buying whatever I feel like) or I care about them (and boycott the lot).  I might know about intensive farming, but how am I going to react to ‘that sort of information’.  I either decide to act or I decide NOT to.

Our core values, learnt from childhood, about rights and wrongs, and softness and kindness, either move us or they wash right over our head.

         

Question: If I couldn’t find a suitable ‘cruelty-free’ replacement product?  Does that mean going without it altogether?  Isn’t that what the boycott is all about?  It’s quite a test! 

The Animal Industries

1127: 

As soon as they run an ad on TV, it either looks tacky or desperate.  I notice they’re now plugging staples like milk, eggs and meat, that once didn’t need to be advertised at all.  With advertising gimmicks to dress up their products, they endeavour to stay in business.  And the bottom line is, they’re safe so far, for they know they have a powerfully addictive product on their hands.  It still sells.

         

But it’s a tired product.  It’s on the nose ethically (because conditions on farms are both unhygienic and uncaring) and nutritionally.  That would be a big turn-off for many customers.

         

Most people are good natured, well intentioned and want to do ‘the right thing’.  Most of us want to be seen as intelligent and humane.  The trouble is though, that that clashes with the deliciousness of foods made with animal products - in their quest to sell as much of their stuff as possible they’ve invented a vast number of foods which use liberal amounts of animal-based ingredients.  But it is also known that all these animal products are associated with obesity and illness as well as animal cruelty.

It comes down to a question of trust; can one risk consorting with the Industry?  Can one trust one’s own judgement on this matter? If their products were above suspicion, we wouldn’t be seeing so much over-the-top advertising.  And, like most people, we all want to believe that we think for ourselves, that we make our own decisions when it comes to food.  We all want to feel as though we are in control of our lives.

But also, we can’t deny ourselves what we want.  Perhaps the child in me still wants things that aren’t good for me, knowing that there are powerfully-tempting products out there.

You can almost hear the inner thoughts of the consumer, “I know that I still want what I shouldn’t buy, but I can’t help myself - because this stuff is addictive.  I know I’m not being told the truth, I guess I’m risking my health, even dicing with death or trashing my ethics whenever I go shopping”.  Nevertheless, the shopping trolley is still piled up with an array of animal products, expensive but exciting.

Whenever an animal product is sold it lets the Industry get away with murder, literally.  Vegetarians have broken that grip.  They don’t want these products anymore.  And vegans certainly let out a big sigh of relief to be free of all of it, especially when a growing number of well qualified scientists point out the diseases associated with animal-based foods.  Our criticisms of these junk foods is justified and we feel vindicated, when we see TV footage of the grim conditions on factory farms.  We can feel grateful that plant-based foods seem so attractive to us.

Around the world things are slowly changing, quickly in some parts.  For instance, in UK, amongst young adults, vegetarianism has risen from less than a few percent two decades ago to over 25% now.  And in Britain, parts of Europe and in USA, veganism is not uncommon, nor is the up-front labelling saying “suitable for vegans”.  So, on the food front things seem to be looking up.  However, philosophically the world has a very long way to go before the majority see the need for animal liberation.

Keeping a low profile, or not

1126: 

Grr. I might be seen as crazy, whacky, war mongering, and hating people who believe that animals must be sacrificed to make food available to make life easier and safer. Anyone who puts up any opposition to my arguments, like ‘the majority’, are enemy - they want their supplies of ‘normal’ foods and normal medicines and dread the idea of living according to vegan principles. Probably that’s a rather immature approach!

         

But just for the moment none of this matters. I don’t mind so much being seen this way if it only leads to my being side-lined. It’s true, that most people turn a blind eye to animal suffering ... but that also means they’re not paying much attention to what the Animal Rights activists  are up to, leaving us to go about our business, uninterrupted.

The fact is that these are early days. We needn’t expect people to change their natures overnight (and by overnight I mean within a brief span of fifty years). These habits of using animals are so deeply ingrained in people’s lifestyles, spanning thousands of years (but gradually getting crueller and nastier over this past half century) that it is still seen as normal. It’s normal to enslave and kill animals for whatever purpose we have for them. Very few are even aware that there IS a ‘movement’ advocating that animals deserve ‘rights’. The fact that animals might not deserve to be farmed and killed for food has never crossed most people’s minds.

This unawareness is not entirely a bad thing, since there’s so much ground work to be done by animal advocates, before we can make any substantial ground with the general public. If there was a lot of controversy in the media we’d be hard pressed energywise, defending our position, whereas in the relative silence we can keep our energies intact. Our efforts could so easily be wasted, tilting at windmills, protesting to no effect.

         

This is an age of preparation. Our movement is largely ignored. Apart from a general, sloppy aggro image we’ve acquired, no great harm is being done to our movement. We are being largely ignored, yes, but also left alone to mature and get our heads around the bigger picture, to prepare for when our ideas start to find traction.

The fact is, no one wants to draw attention to animals having rights or people needing to have a vegan diet. The media won’t high-profile this subject since they don’t want to offend their advertisers or customers. And on T.V. you’ll never see an Animal Rights activist being interviewed, because there’s a danger of making the interviewer look either stupid or cold hearted (with our potentially razor-sharp arguments!)

         

As time goes on, as the A.R. movement grows, things will change, and then, at some point, probably change rather too rapidly. We might not be prepared for it ... which is why I’m suggesting that it’s a fine time for ground work. It’s good for us to learn about effectiveness and public perception and getting to know how people’s minds work.

         

Today, the use of animals is NOT being talked about either round the dinner table or in the public glare of TV. But it’s all there on-line, information available for those who want it. On web sites, in chat rooms it is being discussed. People are wising up, at the same time as the Animal Industry persuasions are becoming less convincing.

         

So far the Animal Rights movement is information rich but not so good at imparting that information. Perhaps the time is not yet ripe, but even if it were, we still need to come a lot closer to those we’re speaking with. The “I-hate-all-omnivores” baggage is still screwing things up. 

Behind closed doors

1125:

Some activists break into vivisection laboratories to rescue the animals there.  Judging by what they have to do to get in and what they find when they get inside, their actions seem both commendable and brave.  They not only want to rescue the animals but want to film what they see and show it.  But people don’t like to look.  We consumers don’t want to know, mainly because we give tacit approval for what goes on in these places.  We want the products, medicines, cosmetics, etc., but don’t want to be involved in much else.  Most people are not willing to boycott products involved in animal testing and aren’t willing to search out non-animal tested items.

We are led to believe scientists will discover cures for major diseases by way of animal research.  The public like to think of vivisectors as being altruistically determined to rid the world of the scourge of disease, and some may be doing just that, but it can never be justified if innocent creatures are tortured and sacrificed in the process.

Whether you agree or disagree, that human life is more important than an animal’s life, there is an element of cover-up in these places, which should raise our worst suspicions.  Even if there is some good intention there, it steps over into deception when the scientists talk about their ‘work with animals’, as if they have some sort of cooperation from them.  It’s as if the animals volunteer for testing to help humans with their problems.

         

If the public are sold on the idea that pharmaceutical safety must involve animal testing, then it’s no surprise that they condemn the animal rescuers and praise the vivisectors.  By giving scientists the go-ahead to use animals to ‘fight disease’ or safety-test shampoos on rabbits’ eyes, the consumer is giving approval for their work.  But always, the details of this work remain hidden, the public is never told what goes on behind the laboratory doors.  Details of experiments, concerning how many animals are injured or killed, are not published.  It isn’t surprising that laboratories are closed to the public.  They claim that the need for bio-security prevents them letting people in to see what they’re doing.  But they know that if we saw and filmed and publicised what they do, their laboratories would have to be shut down.  These days the public are not allowed into intensive farms or abattoirs, for the same reasons.  Obviously there’s a lot to hide in these places

         

I find it hard to accept the lack of support we get from the public.  Certainly, it is disgusting, the cruelty of farmers and scientists, but all the time there is no documentary proof being shown, nothing will register in people’s minds.  Is it possible that we don’t want to know because it would interfere with the smooth supply of those pharmaceuticals or foods or toiletries which depend on a good supply of compliant animals?

It’s infuriating when people don’t respond to the stories they hear about animal treatment, whether in abattoirs or farms or in animal research centres.  It’s as if what we tell them is unbelievable, as if the white-coated scientist is too pure to ‘be like that’, as if such terrible things couldn’t happen down on the farm.

The public’s indifference makes them appear both hard hearted and selfish.