Direct Action or the Indirect Approach?

Edited by CJ Tointon

In the Animal Rights movement, there are several different approaches to get those 'obstinate omnivores' to stop patronising the animal killing trade and to stop the 'animal killers' plying their trade.  The second lot are too far gone for me to bother about.  But they still need to be challenged and there are those who do come into contact with them and expose their cruelties to future customers.  They take evidence that they collect from animal farms and present it in schools and tertiary institutions, hopefully persuading young people, by way of information and video footage, to boycott animal products when they are old enough to make their own decisions.

My focus, however, is at the cash register.  This is where the consumer shells out lots of money and lends support to things they should not be supporting.   I like to imagine sitting on the shoulders of the customers (not literally!), whispering in their ears, "Go back!  Put it back"!

To get the consumer to switch allegiance, from supporting to boycotting, is the difficulty facing the animal advocate.  My way would be to focus on the customers.  They have free-will and are probably addicted to the product anyway.  I believe they respond best to the gentle/coaxing method.  Other animal activists might take a different approach altogether.

Take those who make up the Animal Liberation Front (a direct action group in Europe).  They’re criticised for breaking the law, albeit usually only the law of trespass. They aren’t recognised for what they're trying to do.  Society doesn't acknowledge them for bringing so many animal atrocities to public attention.  In fact they are roundly condemned for their 'direct action'.

Yes - it may be true that these activists are willing to destroy property to save animals who are living in disgusting conditions on intensive farming operations or laboratories.  They risk being fined and even the loss of their own liberty to make their point.  They save many tortured animals and they promise not to cause injury to people during a rescue.  It takes guts to do this - to be an activist involved in direct action!  Perhaps the greatest service they provide is getting video footage, circulating it, getting people informed and thus reducing the excuse that "We didn’t know!".  And it takes even more guts to sink your savings into creating refuges for the animals that are saved.  But 'Society' still doesn't get it and still focuses on the outrage of direct action, when the only real damage done is to Animal Industry property.  Surely, a few broken doors and locks is a small price to pay to inform people of what is really going on.  These days, most adults are so far gone with their 'egg and bacon breakfast' mentality, that they disagree with anything that interferes with what they want.  Perhaps there's a chance that the kids will take note and respond positively???

But I want to come back to the older, more deeply entrenched 'animal-users' and the problem of persuading them to change by gentler means.  The General Public are intoxicated by the fact that they have almost everyone else on-side.  They're confident in defending their right to eat egg and bacon breakfasts.  Anything that threatens this is put down to the hostile motives of Vegans attacking their way of life and trying to destroy 'normal' lifestyles.

To get past this is almost like trying to convince a person that black is white!  If there is going to be any progress along these lines, we have to find a way to break the obstinacy of each individual.  We have to lure them away from the cash register where they buy all their animal stuff.  We have to get each person to feel magnetised by an entirely different impulse.  Our job is to feed them the 'magic pudding' of vegan logic and inspiration, create a boycott mentality - towards which they will find themselves helplessly drawn. 

Ideally, I'd like to make the prospect of changing to a vegan lifestyle so attractive that the whole process of change becomes a pleasure, not a duty.  And then, I'd like to make it so 'fashionable' that everyone will change, thus making the whole approach to life a gentler thing altogether.  Once this can be achieved, the abattoirs would go out of business and the killing would have to stop. ('Animal farmers' don't usually have the guts to do their own slaughtering!) 

By influencing the customer, we hit the animal exploiters where it hurts most - a willing boycotter is the biggest threat to the animal trade.  When left to consider the extent of the animal cruelty in which they're involved, the customer will eventually come around without our needing to bully or blackmail them.  And this approach would hopefully compliment the work of  'the trespassers'.   Those who release the imprisoned animals and lead them to sanctuary and those who film the abuse and lead kids along a new path.  Each activist may have a different approach, but we each play our part in bringing the vast army of animal-eaters around to a healthier, kinder, non-abusive attitude.