Fearless

1270: 

The world’s at a funny stage at the moment.  There’s so much openness to so many issues and yet, over some matters, there are still too many questions left un-asked.  For instance, how is it that some of us are passionate advocates for animals and others are indifferent or even hostile?  

The fact is that our differences are specific and not general.  Vegans are probably not that much brighter or kinder or healthier than anyone else, but we do have something to say and a determination to say it. And we show we mean business by demonstrating, by way of self discipline, that we fearless.  We practise this fearlessness daily by regularly standing up for our principles and doing something difficult - we boycott.  We do without many of the things others can't imagine doing without; we face up to some very difficult ethical issues.  

We’re used to questioning and arguing our case.  This probably makes us somewhat frightening to our opponents, and if I’m right about this, then it follows that our adversaries might feel nervous around us.  They might feel cornered when we start speaking about animals, so we don’t need to wind them up.  

So before we even get to base one, where they're listening to what we have to say, we should be trying to allay their fear of hearing what they think they don't want to hear.

Smile - you’re being watched

1269:

Vegans are used to people trying to have a go at them.  Usually it’s a very half-hearted attempt to make our ‘over sensitivity towards animals’ look foolish.  In company, an insulting comment is often enjoyed by everyone. 

Which is all the more reason why I shouldn’t let myself be provoked.  I don’t need to show outrage, although I should be sure my arguments can ride out these minor annoyances.  At the very least I should be able to say something which sounds, at the very least, competent.

Meat eaters, from their safe, majority position, always like to put down the righteous, aka the vegan.  They want to show how easy it is to make us angry.  They usually try to wind us up, to find an excuse NOT to have to listen to what they don’t want to hear.

If I get angry, it gives them the green light to shut the door in my face.  So, I tell myself, "DON'T get angry". Because if I do get a hearing, I must be prepared for a back-attack. That's part of the game - I’ve dared to question their most private lifestyle habits, they're defending themselves from what they perceive to be my 'attack'.

Most carnivores don’t care about farm animals' suffering, and don’t want to talk about it, but sometimes they do like a bit of biff. They taking us on. So, as vegans, we need to be ready for a bit of ‘dinner table attacking’.

The aim of a sharp-edged joke is to attract attention and gather support from others sitting around the table - the usual majority versus minority game. So, if I take umbrage or withdraw in silence, then it seems that I just can’t come up with a sharp enough retort to fit the occasion, and that makes them smell blood and go in for the kill.

These are still early days for Animal Rights; we’re building foundations and encouraging new attitudes towards animals. We’re outlining law reform that will illegalise abattoirs and animal farming.  And that would include the keeping of birds in cages (whether they’re budgerigars or hens) and fish in bowls or fish-farming tanks.  This line of thinking annoys people hugely, and they'll sometimes want to tell us so.  My point here is that it’s futile to spend too much time fighting with everyone who disagrees with us.

For my part, I don’t want to waste my life fighting every local skirmish.  Maybe those who laugh at us do need to be ignored, if only because jokers and ‘people with vested interests’ are still in the ascendancy.  Many of them are just busting to put us down if they get the chance.  Discretion might be the better part of valour (as in ‘going in boots and all’).

I know that my defence of farmed animals is right.  Of course it is, because it’s the logical outcome of the whole anti-slavery movement.  Obviously it feels right to me.  So, it’s a waste of my emotional energy if I get upset that others don’t agree.  Surely, it helps to have a good sense of humour about it all, if only to preserve our own sanity.  

If I've got to face opposition, it’s ridiculous for me to wage war on the heckler's every puff of smoke.  I don’t need to take on every red neck I meet, or parry every joke.  I don’t have to be afraid of any of this, because the fact is that none of our adversaries have ‘the bottle’ to take us on in serious debate.  

How to get the better of a vegan

1268: 

When I meet an adversary and discuss my views, concerning the eating of animals, I’m at a disadvantage because I know that I hold such a minority view.  It’s almost impossible to win the ‘animal argument’ if my opponent respects and feels supported by the dominant culture.  That’s okay by me, but it won’t be admitted by them, since their interest is in out-manoeuvring me.  So, I don’t see an attack coming until I notice a distinctly personal challenge being made, with no sign of fair debate intended.

Maybe they make a sharp comment which, on the face of it, seems like a joke but has that distinct sharp thrust about it, like the assassin’s knife, in and out in a flash.  It warns that they have no taste for any detailed discussion.

The sharp comment, fired off at ‘joke- level’, was never meant to be shrugged off by me.  It would appear cowardly of me to do that, so, as expected, I fire back an aggressive reply.  And in that split second, as I bite back, I know I’ve been manipulated. My aggressive response is the coup de grace of the ‘joke’.  It ‘turns’ the atmosphere.  I’m made to look bad.  It was me who took things further than necessary.

The innocent jokester reckons I’ve got no sense of humour.  They’re outraged at the thought that their comments could be taken so personally.  By my taking umbrage, by being hypersensitive to a bit of light hearted banter, I show how ready I am to quarrel over this issue.  It’s proof (to my adversary) that I’m neither a compassionate person, nor as non-violent as I purport to be.  I look like a loser who seems to have gentle views about animals but not about people.  And they win!!

Sometimes I'm withdrawing

1267: 

A middle aged person I’ve known a long time, once vegetarian, is now eating lamb (see yesterday’s blog).  For her this whole subject provokes a need to put-down-the-righteous (in this case, me).  She wants to shift my views, and me hers.

Young people find major lifestyle change far easier than older people.  It’s much harder to persuade someone, who’s set in their ways over many adult years.  It isn’t easy for them to even consider what I’m saying, and it’s more difficult the older they are.  At some point in their lives this whole matter has been settled (about eating animals).  They’ve probably promised themselves, family, friends and colleagues, that “It will never happen”, and “It isn’t something I want to talk about”.

Perhaps because their position needs to be held to firmly, to make it clear that they are not in the market for changing, they underscore their determination by making tasteless jokes about vegans.

As one gets older, it’s harder to change because there’s more to lose.  Kids are less tolerant of their parents’ changing than the other way around; teenage kids are less intimidated by the opinions of parents and elders, especially when it comes to points of ethical principle.  For older people, if they ‘go vegan’ either for health or ethical reasons, the main problem they face is one of losing friends and altering so many social habits that it all becomes too daunting.  So, when I suggest they should consider a vegan diet, plus all the ethics that go with it, and if I then pick up negative reaction, even to hostility, that’s usually time to withdraw.

Attacking the vegan

1266 

Recently I was visiting an elderly friend of mine and her youngest and eldest daughters were visiting at the same time.  The younger one, who had once been a vegetarian, once been friendly, now had a ‘more mature’ attitude to her diet and an awkwardness whenever she saw me.  Perhaps she needed to assuage her guilt, ‘needed’ to make jokes about a subject she knew I took seriously.  She had to tell everyone, me included, about her choice of food at a recent dinner in a restaurant.  She wanted me to know that she had had ‘the lamb’.  This was her way of saying "up yours" to me, underlining how much her views differed from mine.

I’d known her since she was a child and have followed her progress over 30 years.  As a kid she was sensitive to animals and as she grew older developed an interest in vegetarian cuisine.  But now she’s enthusiastic for eating meat, hence her mischievous joke about ‘having the lamb’.  With her throw-away line, she meant to attract attention.

I knew that whatever I said in reply would escalate things between us.  I’m always up for a stoush over such things, but I never want to rub salt into a wound or quarrel just to score a point.  Maybe she wanted a fight, but I didn’t hang around to find out.  I don’t know her well enough, these days, to be sure of her boundaries.

I think she meant to make a joke at my expense.  For her it was probably mandatory that she should joke, to counter my stand on Animal Rights, as if whenever ‘animal-eating’ comes up in a conversation it needs to be joked about.  She needs to show people like me how un-cool it is to get sniffy about traditional eating regimes.

She says she enjoys eating lamb, and this turns into a challenge.  And that’s okay, if there’s mutual respect.  But if there’s not ...

Perhaps it’s the meat-eater’s revenge, wanting me to rise to her bait.  She probably regards me as fair game.  But for me it depends on who I’m talking to, as to whether I take up the challenge.  Sometimes I’ll withdraw, at other times I’ll take them on.  But that’s why I’m writing about this incident, not to put her down and not to justify myself but as a fairly typical example of how neither side of the debate can win, when there’s no real debate going on.

Carnivores love to win an argument with a vegan (and vice versa).  They usually make the standard joke about being a proud meat-eater, just to wind us up.  They intend to win, but more importantly they need to gather material for future conversations with their friends, to make a good story out of it.  Vegans do it too.  We make fun of meat eaters amongst ourselves - "These carnivores, what bastards they are. They’ll even eat a lamb!"

Gossip is satisfying.  We all do it.  We all bad mouth our opponents.  But nothing is achieved by it, either in our relationships with our adversaries or for the benefit of the animals themselves.

Heavy attitudes

1265:

There are two different attitudes surrounding the animal debate - on the one side the anger felt by vegans, towards people who brag about their meat eating and don’t give a damn about animals, on the other side are people who resent being forced to consider animals when they don’t want to or have to. There’s this huge gulf between people over the subject of animals.

Animals are eaten by the million, the billion. Not the cute, cuddly ones of course but the so-called ‘edible’ ones. Until a few decades ago very few people gave much thought to how animals were being treated on farms and abattoirs. Nor did they think it was even possible to survive without using animals. Still, today, most would disagree with vegans, that it was wrong to kill them for food.

In the early eighties, The Animals Film and the book Animal Liberation hit the scene. Some of us were profoundly disturbed by what we read and saw, realising for the first time how much of our food relied on enslaved animals. Slowly, with the help of organisations like Animal Liberation and the Vegan Societies, the newly revealed truths seeped into public consciousness and momentum started to build. Then, surprisingly, like Scotch mist, the shock faded and people started to forget. Compromises sprung up, welfare and partial vegetarianism became fashionable. But in general, the public were not to be put off their favourite foods and articles of clothing, even if they came from brutalised animals. The Animal Industries continued to flourish.

In the general community there was a reluctance to face up to animal issues because almost everyone was addicted to the thousands of food products on the market. With a cosy relationship between the media and The Industry, discussion of animal issues was never encouraged, for fear of endangering supply or increasing costs or losing advertising revenues.

Public attitude is now set in concrete, and the situation for farm animals is even more dire than it was thirty years ago. Taking a heavy hammer to that concrete isn’t the answer, I’m sure of that, but I’m not so sure there is another obvious way to even bring the subject up, let alone get people discussing it constructively.

Vegan police

1264: 

A friend of mine reckons I try to take over any conversation to put my case for veganism or animal rights, and she reckons I’m inclined to act like the ‘thought police’.  She says that people hear what I say and think to themselves, “Leave me alone.  I feel okay about what I eat and what I wear”.

         

I can’t fight that, because in their minds there’s no obvious damage being done, they're only doing what others do.  And it’s all perfectly legal.  More importantly they don't have to discuss any of this with anyone.

Imagine what happens when I go snooping inside someone's fridge, disapproving of what I find there.  She says I’m no better than a peeping tom, and that I'm stepping over the line.  Or more importantly, I’m showing my fundamental misunderstanding of people's freedom-of-choice, which they’ll defend to the death.  They might be too polite to object too strongly, to my face. But later, privately, they’ll probably get quite upset about my being a pushy vegan who tries to barge into their private life.  No wonder, they no longer invite me round to dinner!!

         

They feel offended, but that's a favourite defence, and justifies their ‘not listening’ to me.  But maybe some people do listen.  They take what I’m saying seriously.  They seem to have good intentions.  They consider altering their food-buying habits.  But why?

When people embark on a change of habit based on ethical reappraisal, are they changing because they’ve been nudged into it, or is it a true awakening for them, a flash of compassion and empathy?  Or might they want to show their political correctness? Or is it guilt that drives them?

         

Making a major change, such as 'going vegan', must always at first be an experiment.  No one knows if the habit-change will be permanent. If the experiment fails, are we going to feel ashamed of ourselves?  And will any failure weaken our belief in our 'good intentions'?  The answers to these questions isn’t helped by the presence of vegan police.

Food is such a powerful force.  It determines so much of our daily lifestyle.  Food is on our minds all the time. It’s the great tempter.  We might want to be thought of as 'a vegetarian' but at what price?  Isn’t there always the temptation to sneak in a sly hamburger when the ‘police’ aren’t watching?  Food is so powerful, and isn’t there always an element of ‘stolen fruit tasting sweeter’?

Perhaps it’s the depth of reappraising ethics that determines whether we alter course to avoid danger or to establish a whole new world view.

Questioning Going Vegan

1263: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Meat is symbolic of 'rich' living (despite the fact that almost everyone in the West can afford to buy some meat) and, along with other rich and exotic animal foods, it is regarded as 'quality food'.

Animal products are nearly always promoted as the main attraction of any dish because they’re so attractive to the average person's tastebuds.  And they’re often expensive enough to be associated with 'fine dining and good living'.  They appeal to those who want to think they are appreciating the good things in life.  

In contrast, vegans show how unhealthy and unethical these foods actually are, so we make people feel guilty for wanting them.  Consequently, people who like their steaks and lobsters and cream cakes tend to dislike vegans and the sort of foods we recommend.  The main thing that might stop people considering going vegan, is the thought of missing out on foods they have always associated with pleasure and social acceptance.  People may realise that what they’re eating is not good for them in the long run, but they want it (and eat it) anyway.  They can't face missing out on 'roast dinners' - and a whole lot more!  

Vegans have 'taken the plunge' and thus have earned the right to promote non-violent foods.  Some of us have taken it further and promote non-violence as a behavioural model.  Our aim is to interest others in both food and ethics - at the same time.  In contrast, non-vegans can’t take non-violence seriously if they persist in contributing to animal abuse and slaughter by consuming animal products.  The human race is therefore held back from making substantial ethical progress for the sake of maintaining the 'hard-nose' approach to life, especially speciesist attitudes towards animals. 

Most people do what others do.  They don’t think things through for themselves, but submit to the many reasons other omnivores put forward for NOT taking up a vegan diet.  Here are some of their reasons: 

It’s so restrictive!  Since freedom of choice of food is so important, food can take on greater importance than it warrants. For omnivores, the idea of having to give up their animal-based snacks, treats and food 'favourites' is like pulling teeth.   And then there’s the loss of 'cuisine' associated with what one especially likes to eat, like 'French' or 'Chinese' or 'Indian' foods.  The thought of being restricted to eating only the plant-based dishes of these countries would seem unnecessarily limiting.  The thought of not being able to experience many of the great dishes of the world would seem like a great loss. 

But it isn’t just food, it’s clothing too.  For example, there's not much choice of footwear for the 'fashion conscious', outside the leather range of shoes.  And entertainment!  Many people love to see animals in zoos and circuses and aquariums.  Imagine having to explain to kids why the idea of keeping lions in cages is wrong, when their eyes fill with wonder at their first sighting of a real, live lion! 

For teenagers who need work, to earn money for all the things they want, imagine being told that it’s unethical to take available work selling hamburgers at McDonalds.  And for young people who want to train as chefs, imagine being told that virtually every popular dish uses the corpses of executed animals.  Obviously, for anyone with a vegan-leaning, that career path is out of the question. 

Here’s a common problem for the would-be vegan.  You're invited to a dinner party or a wedding.  Either you don't eat at all, or you have to ask for something 'special' thus irritating those providing the food.  

There are other problems connected with being vegan.  What do we do at Christmas or a birthday, when we’re given a woollen jumper as a present?  What do we say when invited to sit on a leather sofa?  What do we do when a lover gives us a kiss and it tastes of the last meaty meal they ate?  What do we do at home if we have to share a kitchen with someone who cooks meat?  How does it feel having to share a fridge in which there are bits of dead animal flesh or smelly cheeses?   What if there are 'stinky' fish leftovers in the waste bin attracting flies?  How do we cope with eating alongside others who eat things that are so obviously disgusting to us? 

If you're single, and looking for a partner, how many suitable vegans are there to choose from?   If you're a vegan,  you know it would be impossible to live with a carnivore, or even a vegetarian.  Could we work with colleagues who make us the butt of their vegan jokes?   If you’re a student at school and the canteen has nothing vegetarian on the menu (let alone vegan) what do you do?   What if I joined an environmental group or a peace movement dedicated to non-violence and found myself attending a typical, fund-raising sausage-sizzle? 

The environmentalists would probably excuse themselves with:   "Veganism?  We’ve got enough issues to handle concerning forests and pollution and global warming without getting hot under the collar about animal farming". 

Maybe you are thinking of "Going Vegan"?  How will you keep your opinions to yourself when all you really feel like doing is 'expanding the consciousness' of your fellows?  Maybe you’d like to be involved in charity work, helping to feed starving children;  only to discover you're raising funds for milk and meat!  Or worse, that these funds are being used to buy live animals, who will be farmed?  Our 'unreasonable' disapproval would seem like our wanting to see kids starve! 


These are just some of the problems facing us when we Go Vegan.

Free-will

1262: 

When young people are growing up they develop reasons and justifications for what they do and thus are drawn into the ‘adult world’ that’s already set up.  They must accept most of it just to survive.  Maybe they want to make changes, but if they do there’s going to be perhaps too much personal loss.  If they enjoy any free will at all, it’s at first granted by the adult world.  As they become adults they are allowed to exercise free-will, and with the earning of serious money they enter the world of adult privilege - they drive, vote, go to bed late, use intoxicants, eat food of choice, dress in clothes they choose, etc. From having been controlled during childhood, now, with free will, they have a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card.  They can determine things their own way.  However, they soon realise that they can’t change the world.  They more or less have to fit in.

Unfortunately many adults use free-will to experience pleasure, but don't use it to address their responsibilities.  They miss the subtler opportunities, to construct an individual character. Instead they follow.

If we, as vegans, try to push our views too hard we fail because we don’t take into account people’s determination to protect their ‘right-to-choose’.  Self interest seems to trump acting for the ‘greater good’.  Do we have a right even to try to persuade them, when there’s no chance of succeeding.  And is our inevitable failure down to people’s freedom to act in any (legal) way they want to?

Thinking harmless

1261: 

Vegan’s have rules concerning animals and eating habits but some of us don’t apply it to our relations with each other.  I know I don’t always observe the rule, of comprehensive non-violence.  It’s easy to dislike uncaring people, but then that probably includes almost the whole of the human race.  My own moral judgement is a slippery slope when I'm disapproving of  the customer for spending their money in support of the very people who directly attack animals.  So the question is, am I capable of harmlessness (thinking-without-aggression) and being non-judgemental?

If I’m trying to set a standard for non-violence, I surely have to be more generous with my judgements, without being a pollyanna.  It means looking for the best in people, giving them the benefit of the doubt, whilst not necessarily okaying what they actually do.

I have to separate the deed from the person.  I have to investigate what makes people tick, and ask myself why so many people aren’t concerned about ‘the animal problem’, and why they aren’t impatient to become vegan.  I’d like to be putting my fellow humans under the microscope, to find out why they don’t protest at the routine killing of creatures, and why they are, in fact, enthusiastic supporters of it, or rather the end products of the killing.  I realise that many people have never given it much thought, I realise many people don’t know what’s really going on.  But I also realise that many people do know and won’t budge.  Towards these people it’s easy to be judgemental, so they provide the best test for vegans who are trying to do some harmlessness-thinking.

Quakers' Rules

1260: 

If killing animals to eat them is condoned by the majority, then I want to be upfront about boycotting all animal-derived products.  This will indicate that I don’t condone violence and specifically violently-extracted foods and commodities.  I hope that my boycott will deliver one less customer to the Animal Industry, and as an example to others, I hope it will encourage others to join the boycott.

It’s a very different way I see my world, where human-the-dominator is no longer valid, where being of equal importance with other species is the goal.  That’s the rule I choose to stick with.

Anyone who is part of a particular discipline, whether in sport, religion or personal relationship, abides by agreed-to rules.  No-rules means no-structure means chaos.  When it comes to the vegan discipline, we adopt the no-use rule not just to be different or to make life more difficult for ourselves, but because they provide a structure which works for us.  And it also proves to be beneficial to others (I'm referring to domesticated animals, of course).  So a ‘discipline’ is a show of strength, a proof that something can be done if we deem it necessary.

Take the example of Quakers - they avoid war and don’t let themselves be conscripted.  They believe disagreements can best be handled by dialogue rather than confrontation.  For many years in the eighteenth century, in Pennsylvania, they maintained friendly relations with the indigenous Americans and governed a whole state on the basis of non-violence.  Their government eventually collapsed, because their way became unfashionable, and the use of violence and force grew in popularity.  But maybe the Quakers were doomed by their own inconsistency.  It wasn’t that they’d gone too far but that they hadn’t gone far enough.  They didn’t embrace the idea of being non-violent towards animals.  One rule for humans, another for non-humans - they condoned violence towards animals because they chose to kill and eat them.  But they still represent today a precept of acting non-violently, and perhaps also non-judgementally, and we can all take something from that and appreciate its value and perhaps apply the best of that rule in a more comprehensive way.

It would be great if the Quakers took up the vegan principle because it would accord with their valuable groundwork (applied to humans as being on an equal footing with each other).  Perhaps Vegans are the new Quakers.  We have taken one discipline from one group and applied it to both humans and non-humans.  In return, we might hope they would take ours on board, to fulfil their non-violence principle.  One group could perhaps benefit the other group, in a sort of principle-exchange.

Strategic judgement traps

1259: 

Does Animal Rights need a communication upgrade?  As a vegan I would be all too aware of the brick wall constructed by non-vegans to protect themselves from vegans’ own tendencies towards judgementalism.  For those of us who try to communicate the need for not-using-animals, moral judgements nearly always close down avenues of discussion.  This is something we need to keep in check.  It's much the same as the need for any animal-eater to keep in check their own habit, of condoning the killing and eating of animals.

But to put our own house in order first, I need to knock off my habit of judging.

The first thing that needs to disappear is rancour.  We often fall back on this feeling to strengthen our own convictions.  It’s evident in the way we use disrespect and the way we induce guilt and fear, to get our point across.  It’s a clumsy tool, resorting to value judgements to win our point.  It does nothing to keep others on side.  There’s no strategic-advantage in finger-wagging.

Let’s say we are talking together, you and I.  If you look at my face, it’s likely you’ll pick up how I’m feeling – either I’m relating to you non-judgementally, by giving off signals that I like you or accept you, or I’m signalling disapproval.  If the latter, although I might not want to BE judgemental, my insecure ego will probably wants to show off some high standards.  And by insisting on establishing my credentials, I risk our whole relationship, that might have been loosely based on mutual respect. 

It’s a gamble – me hoping you’ll accept my forwardness, hoping you’ll respect my honesty, about not deceiving you as to how I really feel.

If I’m being judgemental, it’s all about my values as distinct from yours, and my right to have my say.  But it’s likely you’ll see things another way, taking offence at an unreasonable moral judgement aimed in your direction.  You’ll take offence.

Judgement: what is it? It’s not the hot flame touched by the child, since the judgement is immediately made by the flame – “I’m hot, and you’re burnt”.  Value-judging is different. The evidence isn’t as apparent as the hot flame.  It’s the subjective nature of my judgement of you that makes my flame so hot to the touch.  My judging of you may not seem fair, since nobody else is making the same judgement.  For me, who has nothing else to use for persuasion, the judgement is a blunt weapon, but I hope it will ‘wake you up’.

In the school playground the same thing happens.  You insult me and I punch you in the face before I’ve thought it through.  My judgement is almost primeval, delivered before I’ve given myself time to make a more considered response (which I might fear could be less effective).  It might be almost automatic – me not taking the trouble to consider things more strategically.  I’m relying on you respecting me for saying it as I see it - when it comes to straight-talking I’m hoping my making a value judgement might make me seem like a straight-speaker.  But even if you approve of my shock-and-attack approach, it might still look as if I don’t care about your feelings.  And this sets off a whole train of thoughts about my insensitivity, which adds up to one gigantic, strategic mistake on my part.

Which is why we should be very careful about straying into the mine field of making value judgements. 

Being non-judgemental

1258: 

When I’m talking Animal Rights it’s impossible NOT to show my inner feelings.  Try as I might, if judgement’s in my mind it’s going to be in my voice.  My words may be carefully chosen, but if I harbour any negative personal feeling it’ll show up in my tone of voice and anyone listening will be thinking to themself, “Avoid, avoid”.  So, for vegans talking Animal Rights, it’s almost impossible for us to win people’s hearts if we don’t seem to be on their side, to some extent.

If I wear the badge of the ‘animal liberationist’, owing to my general reputation I’m easily recognisable.  How do I win people over in order to get them to stay with me long enough to listen to what I have to say?  I would suggest by proving to them, first and foremost, that I’m not judgemental, and if necessary making a direct point of saying so (whether they’re likely to believe it or not).

To do that, I first have to BE non-judgemental, truly so.  I must be convinced of the futility of making moral judgements, whether it’s about the abuse of animals or about anything else I consider to be wrong.  Instead, I need to see it in much the same way a doctor sees a disease, without rancour or disrespect but simply as a fault in the system, which needs fixing up.  A good doctor won’t disparage the illness but simply look for a remedy to counter the destructive element.  That's what we should do.

They say there’s cancer in everyone’s body and that we’d be wise to stay healthy and keep our immune systems robust, to lessen the chances for our cancer taking hold.  In much the same way, we need to keep a healthy resolve ‘to avoid making judgements’, so as not to fall into all the classic trap of appearing too righteous for the tastes of ordinary people .

The animals are for cooking

1257: 

There’s little comfort for vegans when we read about animals in media stories and see that they are always the victims of human lifestyle.  All we hear about is how conventional foods are being made more attractive, with cuisine making full use of animal body parts.  Cooking programmes are only ever about new taste sensations.  TV cooks are oblivious of the animals themselves, whose body parts they use.  Their exotic dishes are made to look like the extravagance-we-all-deserve.  They might say, “Don’t be so hard on yourself.  Spoil yourself”.  There’s never a thought given concerning the harm their new and exciting dishes may have.  Not only do these dishes, heavy with rich ingredients, do harm to human health, but they harm the animals who they so liberally use.  T.V. cooks may be good at entertaining us, even good for showing us different ways to use food, but they’re exemplars of mindless animal exploitation.  These TV cooks are the encouragers of indulgence.  They are the tools of the Animal Industries, who do very well out of these TV celebrities.

Our society is careful never to endanger this industry, which enjoys all the backing of Society it could ever wish for.  The fact is that killing animals for food is entirely legal and acceptable, despite the fact that what it produces is so harmful to health.

Because this vast animal-based food industry is such a vital part of our economy, there’s barely a mention of animals, only the products taken from the animals.  And to that end we give the product a special name, to divert us from the animal it came from.  Pork, veal, lamb, beef, venison, bacon, egg, milk, etc., - we’re hardly aware the product has any association with a live creature.  The animal falls into the background, unseen, unmentioned and forgotten, and this is why most vegans are so intent on exposing the perfidiousness of it.  However, there’s not much we can do to force a change of public attitude towards these much-used animals.  We have nothing coercive to fight with.

But that’s to our advantage, as a movement.  We have no physical power to stop this whole ghastly business – all we can do is expose it and make suggestions - we can teach but we can’t touch.

We are such a tiny minority against such a vast majority attitude.  Confrontation is never going to get us anywhere.  The odds are certainly against us.  But because we have no muscle we can't force anything - we must take up only non-violent forms of persuasion.  It might be frustrating for us, but it’s good training in being non judgemental, pushing us to try out new attitudes towards those who disagree with us.  It gives us an edge that wouldn’t occur to most people, and a strength which gives us some chance of impressing people, if only for it's unexpectedness.  

Daggy judgements

1256: 

What should my attitude be towards you, as a meat eater?  If I seem to show antipathy towards you, it’s guaranteed things will go badly wrong between us.  You’ll probably neither like me nor what I’m saying, you probably won’t trust me and you’ll want to catch me out.

When I’m starting out (talking Animal Rights) I should fix up this trust thing before I open my mouth.  I need to assess where you stand, and see if this is a volatile subject for you.  I need to listen, so that you'll know if I’m a good all round listener, a proper listener, not just someone pretending to be interested, waiting for my turn to counter attack.  Here's the point where you or I will know if we'll be jumping down one another’s throats.

I won't want to put you on high alert, so at first, whatever I'm thinking (about your point of view) I’ll be trying to hide it.  But something is sure to give me away.  And that will put an end to any chance I might have had, to 'dialogue' with you.

Here's where I can so easily go wrong, and blow my cover. I'll give myself away too easily, because I so badly want to make you wrong and make me right.  This probably is my need for revenge, my need to make you feel guilty, saying to myself, “There’s nothing else I can do to stop you doing what you do, but to impose my judgement on you”.  But to you, that wouldn’t make sense, since what you do is quite legal, and you know well enough that, “Everyone’s ‘exploiting animals’ in one way or another, so why pick on me?”

On this subject of ‘the use of animals’, these two opposite judgements always will exist.  Vegans, in search of any powerful argument to back up our judgements, lose sight of what we are supposed to be aiming for - by making justifiable moral judgements, we do judge, but in doing so we lose compassion as well as good sense.  Like, when we hear about the latest coronary heart-disease statistics being associated with consuming large amounts of saturated fats (mainly from meat), it might serve our arguments well, but we fall into the most obvious trap - we appear to have no compassion for the fellow human.  When we don’t express concern for those with heart disease we seem callous, and then our very motives seem dodgy.  We seem untrustworthy.  Our judgement looks uglier than the thing we are judging.

Each individual chooses

1255: 

If I’m attempting to convince the majority that what they’re doing, by using, eating or wearing animals is wrong, I’m also asking them to listen to something attractive they can do instead.  Sometimes we can start in with ethics, at other times, health or food or environment, depending on who we’re talking to.

         

So, maybe we start with this sort of pitch, suggesting that there’s a way to get off unhygienic, disease-ridden and appallingly unhealthy foods by simply eating from a plant-base, which takes us immediately away from being involved in the horrendous animal crimes.  Most people will expect us to mention health and animal cruelty, but (as the ads tell us) “there’s much more!”.

Perhaps the most attractive aspect of becoming vegan is the self respect we can develop from pulling away from the brainwashed habits we’ve inherited.  It makes us feel less like cowards, by not exploiting animals simply because they can’t fight back.     

Veganism stands up for the bullied against the dominant, bullying, self-interested human.  We don’t see animals as a resource.  Vegans don’t turn animals into commodities.

Our lifestyle is cheaper too, simpler perhaps, yet encourages us to be creative with food.  If you eat with vegans, it’s likely you’ll discover new tastes and new dishes, and you'll be surprised at the deliciousness of plant-based foods.  But above all of this, the most significant of the attractions is that we’re in a unique position, where we can recommend repairs that can transform our species and our planet’s future, by the simple expedient of living non-violent lives.  In other words by becoming vegan it allows us to take a brave stand and pave the way for a constructive improvement of human life.

Vegans are brave in what they do in their private lives, and nothing more needs be said.  Unless it is to mention those who go a bit further and are speaking out amidst hostility and ridicule.  It’s so easy to speak with the crowd, but so hard to stand against it.

Effectively we’re selling a new ‘product’, a new attitude and a new awareness, which most people have never really thought about.  To us it may be an attractive philosophy.  But, more importantly, it must appear to be so to others.  And that’s where one's individual character comes in.  However else we may appear to be, vegans must be upbeat.  We must represent long-term-change, not try to dictate it but simply let it show itself, without fanfare.

I don’t want anyone merely to agree with me but to think things through for themselves.  People must be their own judge and jury.

Blunt Instruments

1254: 

The idea of Animal Liberation, rescuing and liberating animals, is right.  That's what we’re trying to communicate, about the horrors of the animals’ lives in captivity, is right.  And it may seem right to condemn those people who still continue supporting the animal industries.  But does it work?  

Just about everyone in the community is involved as customers of these industries, and for that reason alone not many of them will feel constrained to take ‘liberation’ too seriously.

         

We do have an added problem, in that we, as a movement, aren’t very consistent.  I think in the future we will have to be.   As I’ve already mentioned, many liberationists are 'owners' of carnivorous-animals, so they’re visiting the meat counter just as meat-eaters do themselves.  But that aside, what we condemn in others for disregarding farm animals, we do because, to some extent, it makes us feel good, for being ‘right’.  And, whether we are consistent or not, condemnation and value judgement was never going to work anyway.  The meat-eating community will not to be bullied into giving up their meat, and they might even enjoy the outrage of vegans.

         

Some vegans are like bullies, and even amongst one another there’s a tendency towards being vegan-police-types, criticising one another’s inconsistencies.  Perhaps, at first sight, that’s how I might come across, for seeming to condemn inconsistencies amongst fellow vegans (who buy meat for their cats and dogs).  But it’s not the detail of our various judgements but judgement in general, which is so unproductive.  None of us likes to be judged and most of us respond badly to it.  So, overall, the blunt instrument of judgement, real or perceived, works against our best aims.  If we make use of judgement we can’t, in my opinion, be effective advocates for animals.

         

Over the years, I’ve found that all my judging and condemning has never worked.  My point is that any amount of outrage, especially from a small group of people, is ineffective.  It’s just too easy for (the big group of) people to ignore it and remain blissfully unscathed by their (small group of) judges.

         

If we condemn the unethical use of animals, without the support of the law or the majority of ordinary people, our protests and judgements will appear to be simply the ravings of weirdoes, which is sublimely ignorable.  The best way to be effective is surely to encourage people to think and discuss, without insisting that they agree with our views.  We shouldn't get defensive about our views.  Yes, we need to state our case clearly but then we need to stand back and see what happens, and try to understand why people are responding the way they do.  Our movement needs more dispassionate research into attitude.  Then, we might be in a better position to realise what we’re up against and what will work in changing Society’s attitude. 

Judgement and Arson

1253: 

As we swelter in a heatwave, the Bush (as we call the country regions of Australia) as usual, at this time of the year, is burning.  Houses have been lost.  It’s on the news.  [There’s been very little mention of the main tragedy concerning the majority inhabitants of the Bush, the animals, most of whom couldn’t escape and were burned to death.  They refer to it as 'stock loss', but that’s another matter.]

They say the current fires were deliberately lit.  There’s public fury about this.  And there’s due praise for the brave fire fighters risking their lives and there’s due tears for the loss of property and human lives, and justifiably so.  But these fires do other damage.  They bring out the angry judgement in us, the frustration and the excuse for harbouring violent feelings towards the arsonists.  We’re proud to feel so strongly, in defence of the victims of the arson, but we’re inconsistent with our strong feelings.

In a hot dry country like Australia, where bush fires are common, there is no other person so detested as the arsonist.  Here’s someone, often a juvenile, with pyromaniac tendencies, who are neither safe from their own impulses nor from the fiercest judgement of other people.  Here’s someone seeking a kind of recognition, but in a very destructive way, perhaps not fully realising the risks they’re taking, by setting a fire and causing so many deaths.

On being caught, they’re harshly judged by their community, who only want to see them punished severely.  The arson brings on the fury of people, who feel justified in letting it out.  And if the arsonist is caught he suffers from public shaming plus the sentence passed down by a professional judge.  Nothing shows better how foolish the initial act of arson is and nothing shows up the public thirst for vengeance than an arsonist-lit bush fire.

That's the crime of arson, but for another equally horrendous crime there’s silence.  When something is not illegal, and I’m thinking here of the killing and eating of animals, the only thing that might help put out this particular ‘fire’ seems to be the making of judgement – the shaming of those responsible.

The activist takes on that responsibility, simply because there’s no one else doing the job on our behalf (like a politician).  We take on the role of judge, since we have no professional judge and court room to do this for us.  It seems quite justified (and essential in fact), to sound off loudest, to voice the heaviest judgement when no one else is even the slightest bit disturbed by the crime.  But still, the judgement-idea must always fail.  We form a strong opinion - the public’s for the arsonist, the vegan’s for the meat eater, but we’re doomed to failure, because we go nowhere near to understanding why the arsonist lights fires or the meat eater hurts animals.  One is in the minority, the other in the majority.  The one is usually in their youth and they’d have to be a very disturbed mind to do what they do knowingly.  The other is NOT in their youth, and they do what they do knowingly.  The meat eater is the pyromaniac’s double.  And they each need urgent help to cure them of the same urges – the urge to dominate, to violate, and to do it with not a care in the world. 

Not letting our side down

1252: 

All of us are trained from childhood to make judgements of other people - if someone seems bad or stupid or weak, our judging of them makes us feel better about ourselves.  We like to feel superior.  It’s a god-on-my-side sort of feeling.  But by being vegan we are also trying to win recognition for an important principle, which should be bigger than the satisfaction of feeling ‘better-than’.

         

It’s the principle that counts.  It should never be about me and my progress towards enlightenment but about the abolition of animal enslavement and the realisation of its importance.  Therefore I shouldn’t be too quick to judge others, for fear of doing damage to the Animal Rights movement itself.  I, as a vegan, represent other vegans and their reputation.  By judging those who aren’t thinking like me, I can be certain to turn them away from a particular way of thinking that they might have come round to, in time.

         

Memory plays tricks on us when we think we’ve always been ‘clean’; none of us have always been on the ‘right track’.  We haven’t always been vegan.  We once had another viewpoint, but along the way we changed.  For my part, it hit me one day that it was a good idea.  The idea came unadorned and without someone pushing it.  And it occurs to me that I might NOT have become vegan if I’d met up with a judgemental do-gooder who I found to be unattractive, with whom I could not identify.

Feeling safe as a vegan should cancel out any need to be judgemental.  The violence in our society stems from some people being thought of as inferior.  If I’d ever encouraged that, I’d have only added to the problem of making others feel inferior, and why would I want to do that?  Maybe somewhere in my past I was taught that a little violence kept others in their place or that it would force them to rise to a higher level.  But I know that 'being in the right' can, ironically, put us in the wrong, when judgement, aggression and a disregard for the non-violent principle contradicts all the good that we believe in.

The Very Nice People who Live on Concern Street

1251: 

We’re just humble cleaners.  We work for the wealthy folks living on Concern Street.  We’re good little mice, hardly noticed, who perform a service for them.

On Concern Street there’s a whole range of people with all sorts of qualities.  Ostensibly this is where respectable middle class people live.  They’re the  sort of people who are educated, thoughtful and concerned about all sorts of issues, but they tend to leave a lot of mess after them, which is why they get us in to do the cleaning up.  We’re there to clean up, yes, but we’re there to learn too.

We aren’t really their cleaners, we’re more like their silent changers.  We hope they’ll learn how to live a less messy life. But to do our job properly we, who’re into Animal Rights, are wanting to bring to the attention, of those living on Concern Street, the mess they leave behind them.  They don’t mean to be messy but they have messy minds.  They need the cleaners. And we know that there’s something preventing these fine folks from cleaning up their act.  They might not realise what it is, so we must continue to do their cleaning for them.  If we told them about their mess they wouldn’t listen to us – to them we’re just ‘the cleaners’ and they hardly even notice us.  They like what we do, what we represent, but they don’t expect us to have anything important to say to them.

Animal Rights won’t build momentum amongst the general population yet, since we hardly touch the surface of their collective conscience.  And so we are simply present, performing a simple task, performing a ritual dance of conscience, providing an entertainment almost, just by cleaning up for them.

No Need for Force

1250:

I’m better than others and entitled to judge others who disagree with me.  If I can’t get people to agree with me I use value judgement to force them my way – since I’m right, I’m entitled to use whatever means are available to make you ‘right’ too.

If I attempt to judge someone’s values, it’s a subtle form of violence.  Even though on the one hand I’m bravely defending animals from being exploited, I can still also be violating people’s space and their freedom of choice.  It’s dangerous, because free-will and choice are regarded, by almost everyone, as sacrosanct.  Over the ages, free-will has been fought for and won.  We (here in the West) believe ourselves to be part of a ‘free-willed’ society.  We don’t want to lose that.

So, when a vegan come along, who seems to want to take that away, there’s a negative reaction to “You are wrong, I am right, this is what you must do”.

From an outsider’s point of view, there’s something threatening in anyone who is holier-than-thou - one usually wants to bring them ‘down to size’.  Anyone who puts themselves forward, and thinks themselves better, cleverer, wealthier, better looking or more righteous, automatically appears unattractive.  No one likes a person who is self satisfied.

Once you get vegans who aren’t judgemental, everything changes.  A vegan who doesn’t appear to be pushy or too overly persuasive is assessed on a different plane.  Firstly, that they’re unlikely to be judgemental, secondly that they’re talk-with-able.

For vegans, we might run the risk of seeming to be too passive, because we’re not quite convinced of our own arguments, as if we’re too hesitant to 'come on too strongly' with others – it makes us that much more easily ignored.  But the advantage is that we don’t ignite anger, don’t deserve to be aggressively attacked, which means we don’t have to go onto the defensive.

The theory might go something like this: sit back and enjoy advocating Animal Rights.  Who can complain, when we give no one any excuse to get heavy with us.

It’s like watching a movie, the movie is speaking its message but passively.  It doesn’t leap out and judge its audience for not engaging with it.  Similarly, books don’t judge us.  We learn from them, that’s all.  We can chuck them out of the window if needs be.  The book won’t be offended.  Likewise, as a vegan I might ask questions but no one needs to answer them nor should they feel compelled to, or be judged badly if they don’t.

So, I put up my arguments.  They go into circulation.  Maybe what I say causes a disturbance, and therefore attracts attention.  But that’s not what I’m setting out to do in my own mind.  We’re safe from being attacked or being rubbished if we’re consciously trying  NOT force the issue.

The Judgement Trap

1249: 

Most people know the way vegans see their world but don't know whether they're converters or not.  Best to avoid them just in case they want to preach.  You just don’t know if vegans will act like civilised people, or if they'll start to talk at you.

Me, if I think being vegan is how everyone else should be, if I think I’m right, morally (and health-wise), I might be looking around for opportunities to persuade others.  If I’m ‘in the right’ they'll have to listen.

For you, with a strong sense of your own free-will and on-side with so many others who lead a 'normal' way of life, a vegan's rightness is quite ignorable.  A vegan might be seen as quirky even charming but on the whole unrealistic and sometimes a pain in the arse.  On our present record, we are not to be taken seriously and certainly not to be feared.   It's like the playground, where the big kid is challenged to a fight by a little kid - the reaction is more amusement than anything else, at the audacity of the weakling, underestimating the strength of the opponent.

The Animal Industry, with all its persuasive power and money,  make their statements regularly and strongly.  They're everywhere with their message.  At the cricket, not only is there a huge KFC painted on the grass behind the wicket (so you see it every time a ball is bowled) but there are KFC stickers on each of the three stumps, at each end. KFC, along with all the other meat-corporations, are in your face on hoardings, TV, print media and radio.

So what pressure can we apply, as vegans, when we are up against a message that says today's KFC will be as good-tasting as the last one you had, and as inexpensive.  When corporations like KFC exert power, they KNOW how to do it without doing themselves damage.  They won't be phased by a few vegans getting cross about chickens.

Psychologically, the little boy in the playground, looking at his toy the bully has just smashed, feels huge frustration.  He wants to beat the bejesus out of the thug, but knows he'll come off second best.  But what can he do about the injustice?  And so it goes on, scenario after scenario, the bully winning, the shrimp in tears.

But not all is lost.  Whilst bullied kids often grow up to be bullies themselves (and most carnivore children bring up a new generation of carnivore children) some don't.  Some learn the lesson of dealing with the bully, not only to protect themselves but to protect other bullied kids.  They adopt a strategy that is less obvious, less knee-jerk, less doomed to failure.  It's not water tight and it not always stems from altruism, but there are other ways to handle the bully-mentality without resorting to violence.  Bullying comes in every imaginable flavour.  Kids at school versus bigger kids, third world countries versus The Wealthy Exploiting Country, vegans versus meat-heads.  The weaker minorities will always fight the powerful, and for vegans, we'll always be in a fight over the subject of bullied animals.  So, the less obvious approach is one where we appear confident but passive, immovable but not pushy, courageous in what we say but never judgemental.  For the bully, that is confusing, because we are so obviously not cowed by any situation we find ourselves in.

Probably most vegans will continue their lives, standing up for their principles, but we do have a problem, amongst ourselves. We never seem to quite grasp the nettle.  We relate everything we stand for back to non-violence but sometimes fail because we still use the old fashioned tactic of violent speech, and there are still angry thoughts behind the speech.  The result is a contradiction, which looks to the omnipresent omnivore as if we are teetering on the brink of a hissy fit.  And tantrums do nothing for persuasion.

So, I'm gradually coming around to the point of this blog - judgement.  This is what vegans have put on themselves, responding to their own double standards by disciplining themselves, and eventually becoming vegan.  This engine is driven by one single idea: if I can do it then so can you, which comes out as so should you; I am bringing the light to you, insisting that you let the light in, if not I will disapprove of you.  You will be unworthy of my respect.  My values will no longer be the same as yours.  You will be lost to me.

That's extreme of course, just to make the point, but feelings are felt, intentions obvious, and nothing is hidden because each of us has no trouble at all in reading the other's feelings.  (We broadcast feelings and they're received without difficulty).  So, it's important not to broadcast judgement.  How you do that is your art, your craft, your personality expressing something to another person, who reads it as your attempt to quell this one misconception: that you are in any way wanting to be judgemental.

If we can arrive at this point, then we won't be labelled 'preacher'.  And it's not just for the benefit of show either.  We have to understand how ineffective judgements are, and how badly they affect any intelligent discussion of this very difficult subject.

It's obvious that vegans have something they badly WANT to say.  Omnivores are on the lookout for the agitated vegan who tries to open up the subject of 'animals'.  They believe that all vegans are self-righteous, and that you can smell them a mile off.  To alter that perception we need to beware of the judgement trap.

Dealing with Opposition

1250: 

      

If we are ever in doubt we find some certainty in instinct.  Somewhere deep in our psyche, instinct confirms our decisions so that we feel safer.  In return we use instinct again to keep us on an even keel and avoid being violent.  We live in peace, but another force in us, that dares us forward, urges us to explore the unknown, to get into self-discovery.

Animal Rights and Animal Liberation is all about that.  Instinct tells us that we should be working on a central principle, the need for freedom, for ourselves and therefore for others too, human and non-human.  And because it’s so obviously right, that slavery is so obviously wrong, we draw strength from within to defend the need to liberate, to end slavery.  And if others don't agree, then that instinctive strength prevents our becoming hypersensitive to criticism.  However ugly people's responses are to what we say, we know that it never matches the ugliness of what we’ve seen, hidden, in the animal gulags.

But instinct also has a way of detaching us from the real world, and we need to keep our feet on the ground.  So, if I have found out something important, it doesn’t mean anyone else wants me preaching to them about it.  They have the right to be left in peace.  So, we need to find ways of respecting that before we ever get to the point of pushing our point of view.  If someone can arrive at the same conclusion as we have, of their own free will, then they can move on at their own pace, and not be held back by their resentment of being preached-at. 

Exploding some more Myths

1249: 

The myth that it is safe to eat meat is attractive.  In contrast, the vegan message isn’t so attractive.  But the capacity of younger people to make casual segues into what, to my generation, might be radical changes to  lifestyle, is remarkable.  But if the young are more able to swing into such changes, it doesn't always follow that they'll maintain that change.  They may not realise at the time just how much changing they might have to do.  Certainly, they need to know what vegan principle is all about, and find out what is true and what is myth.

Some favourite myths must be exploded. The first would be that meat, and therefore animal farming, is essential for human survival.  That statement is certainly worth talking about, and I'd cite nutritional studies which show that not to be the case.   

Another myth might concern the efficacy of prescription drugs and supplements, and their popularity as shown by the number of chemist shops on Main Street. This myth is fuelled by the number of people after a chemical cure-all, or their need for alleviation of chronic health conditions. Their focus on self-cure leads people to believe that it’s okay to test drugs on animals, because it’s the only way to have safe pharmaceuticals and therefore a safe life.  

Another myth might be that unless we have animals living as our dependents, that we’ll be lonely. Stemming from that myth, we find that we sentence dogs and cats to a life of social isolation and loneliness.  Dogs especially suffer, and I hear them yowling in houses in the city, imprisoned and lonely and often confined to the indoors, while their humans are away for many long hours. And this is all about human comfort - humans ‘lighting up’ when they feel simpatico with their dog or cat. (Does the animal have that same ‘light up’?  We’ll never know.  But the thrills of animal-human relationship are certainly experienced by humans).  ‘Pets’ are a great source of comfort to us.  But what is this?  Isn’t it really all about how we humans put our own welfare above the comfort of the animal?  We can't on any account allow ourselves to be lonely!

People are so locked into these sorts of beliefs, but they are based on myth.  Vegans show a different view of human safety and survival.  Do we need meat, do we need drugs, do we need pets?  If we say ‎’yes’ to any of these we may win public support, but each ‎‘yes’ means animals will suffer because of that ‘exception’, that “yes”, that myth.

The Importance of Rights for Animals

1248: 

Human convenience is a powerful instinct.  How many of us could give up using paper to save the forests from being pulped?  And that’s just paper.  When it comes to food and clothing it would seem to be a mighty strong principle one is espousing, that denies us so many wonderful conveniences.

         

It all comes back to lifestyle and what we’ve grown used to.  Moving towards liberating animals would be inconvenient, but freeing children or freeing any slave from their master was once thought to be unrealistic. Freeing humans from slavery is no different from liberating animals from humans.  It’s so typical of human bias and prejudice, that we have a horror of humans being slaves but not animals being slaves.  It’s a bit like our Western horror at eating dogs put up against our excitement at eating sheep.

         

Having said that, about freeing animals, I acknowledge the danger of our being overrun by them - we’ve bred vast herds and flocks of creatures, and for our own safety we would have to curtail their breeding until their numbers substantially diminished.  But there’s a question of their safety.  These are mutated creatures, warped by humans interfering in genes and immune systems. Domesticated animals, freed from farms, would have to be protected from Nature and predation - they couldn’t survive in the wild.

         

But bearing that in mind, and realising that when these changes are being made they’ll happen slowly, there’s still going to be money involved. There will be a sanctuary-building bill to pay.  But that’s some way off, and it comes when there’s been a substantial change of attitude towards animals in our care. What is appropriate, for these early days, is that the concept of Animal Rights needs to be promoted vigorously.  It’s the principle of the thing which people need to get their heads around.  If we trim it to make it more acceptable there won’t be nearly enough momentum to achieve any sort of rights for animals, and the whole horror story will only continue and get worse. 

The Principle of No-Animal-Use

1247:

Many years ago, if a child came from a poor family that child would be put to work, to help the family eat.  Later, there were protests, and laws were made to protect working children, arguing that children should not be working.  But if they didn’t, their families would starve.  This exact problem still exists in many parts of the world today, where kids are working as little more than slaves. 

We, where this sort of slavery isn’t evident, can’t understand how it could be.  But we need to understand what enslavement signifies.  In the West, it’s not so much a problem of human slavery or child slavery but the enslavement of domesticated animals that’s so ugly.  But, we’re safe to do this, since animals don’t rebel.  They’ve been made so docile that liberation-wise they don’t stand a chance.  Animals are helpless to fight their situation, and they’ll continue to be slaves until enough of the enslavers change their attitudes.  But is it likely?  Will enough humans stand up for them?  Will we protect domesticated animals and give them sanctuary, with the aim of returning their species to the wild?  Animal liberationists want animals to be free.  But freedom is not welfare.  While the idea of ‘animal welfare’ looks good, it’s usually a feel-good, partial respect for animals.  Now, vegans might be particularly sensitive to freedom, so our ‘fighting for the animals’ means more than just campaigning for better prison conditions for them.

         

What does ‘no-animal-use’ mean?  To most of us, it means doing without hundreds of commercial products and constantly making ethical choices about what food we'll eat, clothing we’ll wear and toiletries we'll use.  The avoidance-list is a long one, and includes everything from not patronising horse racing, not visiting zoos, and avoiding buying meat, cheese and fish.  That’s one huge shift away from an omnivore lifestyle product list, but imagine the suffering we cause, with even one decision to exclude anything from that list.

If any group dared to promote a comprehensive avoidance policy, they could reckon on alienating just about everybody, and ending up with no support at all.  So animal groups tend to favour a more pragmatic course.  They target the worst abuses and leave ‘the preposterous idea of no-use-of-animals’ well alone.  They want to be seen to be doing something worthwhile.  They don’t want to be mistaken for radical abolitionists.

How easily we lose sight of ideals when we engage in ‘sensible compromise’.

         

Amongst animal activists and environmentalists, faith in our own abilities to transform Society is low.  Set this against our own great need for recognition from one another, and there’ll have to be a fair bit of watering-down done.  And that’s probably why so few people support true animal rights. 

If indeed the animals themselves had a voice and could vote on what rights they most wanted, number one would be for protection from being used by humans, in any way whatsoever.  Thank goodness animals are voiceless!

Those people who don’t advocate for animals, who eat and wear animal body parts without a second thought, can’t be expected to legislate to protect the animals, since they are so useful.  Humans won’t pass laws forcing ourselves to leave animals alone, for at the end of the day, we look after our own interests.  With docile domesticated animals we’re safe, since they can’t stand up for themselves.

This is why vegans are their advocates, and why only vegans can BE their advocates.

Exploding myths

256: 

Vegans will always have their work cut out, persuading people to change radically.  But for us it’s not just about persuading reluctant people, it’s also about being useful to them.  (Doesn’t sound too patronising?)

I like to think I take people as they are, even if they don’t want to listen to what I have to say.  So, for vegans, whatever it IS that we want to say mustn’t be full of anger and frustration.  Nor can we afford to be thinking aggressive thoughts towards someone who's being speciesist, or even being plain offensive.  This is not an ego dance we’re engaged in here, but a performance which must accept whatever the audience offers.

That performance, the script, the words I use point to one main thing – the breaking of myths.  We need to show people the extent to which they’ve been mind-manipulated.  There are so many comfortable myths, wrapped in morals, like this one: That it is okay to make use of animals just as long as we love them. Put this way it looks like nonsense, but it is attractive nonsense.   And it becomes a myth.

Self-Confidence

1245: Posted Friday 2nd January

Edited by CJ Tointon

Each one of us, who is free to follow the Abolitionist approach and who lives according to the "non-use-of-animals" rule, must build a certain sort of self-confidence.  When addressing others on this tricky subject, we must be knowledgable and show a determination to educate, but we must also enjoy ourselves while doing it. 

This is the sort of confidence abolitionists must have and it's probably only possible if we know the other person is comfortable with the discussion.  Good communication skills are needed.  However much you and I disagree on these serious matters, we must still be able to pass muster with each other and maintain mutual respect without any hint of hectoring.

If you know exactly where you stand on such matters as the "non-use-of-animals", then your manner can remain calm and unthreatening.  You’d use the same manner if you were teaching a child to read.   By doing it softly.  Perhaps slowly.  With endless patience.  But with the assurance that they’ll get it - eventually.

With the concept of "Animal Rights", we are bringing others around to an entirely new attitude in which there is no using-of-animals.  We are letting them into a world that’s obvious to us, but very foreign to them.

The big difference between teacher and child is that one can read and the other can't - yet.  It's not much different for seasoned vegans.  We can 'read' already and they can’t - yet.  They might never have given  much thought to the connection between ethics and animals.  For most people, veganism is nothing more than a health issue.

Enter the 'ethics' mob.  As a vegan, I must appear as just an ordinary person who you might casually get to know.   I must be known to you as 'OK' (reasonable, fair minded, not likely be the hectoring type) and then I stand a chance.  The omnivore might listen, perhaps out of politeness, perhaps out of curiosity, but hopefully without any fear.  My aim (before I even open my mouth) would be to try to establish that I am this sort of person.  And then (if I get the chance) I need to be clear about where I stand so, my arguments can be fully and freely discussed.  First and foremost, vegans must be believable. Others must know that we speak from experience and perhaps with some authority.  This means that what we say must be spoken truly and confidently, otherwise we'll just make them nervous and they'll want to walk away.

What if a person looks to animal advocates/activists for a lead but finds that no one can pass muster?   

What if every vegan they meet is a hector?  Then they wouldn't feel comfortable talking to any Vegans.  This leaves them out in the cold, but it also lets them off the hook, making it easier for them to return to business-as-usual. 

In this unfair world, perhaps it’s not very fair on us. Nevertheless, as activists, we have to be squeaky clean.  No dodgy areas, otherwise we crumble or we’re 'seen through'.  Now, you might say that if we have any double standards at all (and we all have our own double standards) we must be prepared to own up to them or justify them.  If we don’t, we may be shown up.  In other words, if we won't do this properly, we can't expect others to.

Admittedly, the principles of veganism are very high, but they need to be.  They have to withstand a whole society that's into a massive routine of  "animal attack"!  Veganism seems to adopt high principles if only because our species has stooped so low.  We have, over many generations, become nothing short of 'slave-masters'.  Perhaps in the earlier stages of human development there was some justification for corralling and killing animals, because they were thought to be nutritionally essential for our survival.  But for a long time, Science has upended that idea.  We are more knowledgeable today.  But the purpose of knowledge is to act on it, not ignore it.  We now know that the high animal protein content of our food in the majority diet, is not only non-essential but positively harmful to human health.

Before anything else can move on for us as a species, we have to admit that we're a mutated species, prone to violence.  If we want to restore our true nature, if we want to develop, we must face up to the inconvenience of living according to the non-violent principle. That means living as ethically as possible.  And vegan living is the obvious start.  Every other way involves violence.  There are no caveats or exceptions available.  There's just no other way around the ethical mess we've created for ourselves;  not to mention the ill health everywhere.  In the bigger picture, projected ahead, we can surely see our own amazingly intelligent species transforming, adapting to being less cruel and callous.  But for that to happen, there needs to be consensus.  We minorities have to be strong and romantic, for in the end, the majority must be wooed.  We must aim at a lot of people 'falling in love' with the idea, or at least becoming convinced about the no-use-animal principle.

Without this 'love affair', there won't be enough momentum for the message of non-violence to be heard over the din of speciesism and racism and a thousand other 'isms'. 
There's really only ONE attitude to be changed!  Put simply:  Address the problem of animal-use as if you're seeing them as co-sentient, sovereign individuals, as irreplaceable as we are.