Kim Stallwood

I’m embarrassed to admit that my last post was nearly two weeks ago. Between then and now I’ve looked at this Web site every day (sometimes several times a day) and thought, I must post something. And I haven’t. And once you’ve stopped, it’s really difficult to pick up on the momentum again.

So, why the gap?

Been busy.

That’s all there is to it.

But if I have to blame any single one thing, well, it will be writing. And when I say, writing, I mean writing, thinking, re-writing, deleting, staring into space, eating, laundry, the allotment, cooking dinner, sleeping and every other activity I do, some of which I’m not willing to share here.

Writing is all I’m ever thinking about. Well, that’s not true. As I left one thing off the list of things I do. Reading. I read an awful lot. But, then, there’s different types of reading. Scanning. Reading selective bits. Looking through reading. And so on. But I don’t get enough time to read what I want to read. Or need to read.

And whoever invented the Internet should be shot.

So, this is why there’s been a silence. Or the appearance of a silence from yours truly.

Because yours truly has been busy. But not here.

And what’s prompted this public apology and vain attempt to get back onto the blogging schedule?

Something I just read.

Here’s the link. If you’re a writer, you’ll love it. If you’re a reader, you will find it interesting. If you’re neither, fix a drink because you need it.

Even if you don’t think so.

Lyndum House in Petersfield where I first began to work for Compassion In World Farming.

On the occasion of a recent visit to Petersfield, Hampshire, I made a point of taking a look at Lyndum House in the High Street.

In 1976 when I first began to work for organisations campaigning for animals, my first days (well, two years) were spent at Lyndum House with Compassion In World Farming.

At this time, Compassion was a very small organisation renting a couple of rooms upstairs in the back of an old building, Lyndum House, in Petersfield’s Hight Street. Working there were Elaine, Compassion’s first and then only full-time employee, and Thelma and Pauline, part-time researcher and secretary respectively. Peter, who donated his time and expertise to Compassion, had also started a company called Direct Foods, whose claim to fame was Sosmix.

My interview with Peter was the first time I was forced to think about what compassion meant.

“Do you have a problem with the word ‘compassion’?” he asked.

“No, I don’t think so,” I replied. “Why?”

“Well,” I recall him saying, “some men are embarrassed by the word.”

“Not me,” I reassured him.

My answer was motivated more by wanting the job than understanding what compassion means. I cannot say that I understood what it meant then but it is a word that I have subsequently grown to respect, becoming one of my four key values.

Peter hired me and my professional career in the animal rights movement began unbeknownst to me. I soon realised from working at Compassion that this is what I wanted to do with my life: stop animal exploitation and secure animal rights.

Rumours of Margaret Thatcher’s departure from this mortal coil continue. I wrote about my anxiety on how to react to the news of the inevitable here. Here’s another take from Owen Jones, which I appreciate.

I doubt any Prime Minister has ever polarised this country as much as Thatcher. The right idolise her like no other, believing ‘the Lady’ rescued a declining Britain from creeping socialism in the 1970s. But a pretty significant chunk of the country hate her so much that her death will, undoubtedly, be celebrated. Over the weekend, rumours flew around Twitter that she is on her deathbed: unlikely, but her departure from this world is probably not that far away. Facebook events encouraging street parties to mark her death have been live for years and have thousands of excited members. Let me be honest: I will not weep when Thatcher dies. Her governments ruined entire communities, and many of them still lie in pieces. People have lost lives as a result of her policies: whether it be the Argentine soldiers on the Belgrano, or miners who committed suicide in despair as their futures were taken away from them. But I won’t celebrate either. For a start, there’s a universal principle at stake: I don’t wish death on any figure, whether they be Thatcher or Osama bin Laden. I think they should be held accountable for their actions, and I don’t think their death solves anything.

What would you like to see included in a new Website on vegan living? This is a vegan Web site which is aimed as much for vegans as it is for non-vegans who want to know how to cook and care for vegans. Please email me, Kim Stallwood, with your thoughts, comments, recommendations and ideas at kim@kimstallwood.com.

Further to my post two days ago which detailed the UK government’s ideological agenda determining that it would be too much regulation to prohibit animals from performing in circuses, respected environmentalist Jonathon Porritt writes on his blog that

It is, I’m afraid, unavoidably depressing to see just how rapidly things have gone backwards since May 2010 [when the present UK Conservative-led coalition government was elected]. Instead of having a really strong story to tell at the Rio + 20 Conference in a year’s time, having built up an internationally-recognised framework for sustainable development in the 10 years running up to last year’s General Election, our contribution in Rio – as things stand at the moment – will be humiliatingly insubstantial.

For more on this, read Jonathon’s report commissioned by Friends of the Earth.

The joy expressed worldwide on the news of Osama bin Laden’s death is simultaneously understandable and disturbing.

Understandable because, like everyone else in the USA on September 11, 2001, it was impossible to pretend otherwise that the morning’s terrorist attacks changed everything. That day I was in Baltimore, MD, which is one hour north of Washington, DC, and two hours south of New York City, working at the offices of The Animals’ Agenda, an animal rights magazine I edited and published. We stayed in publication with the narrowest of balance sheets imaginable. If it wasn’t for the outstanding generosity of the magazine’s readers and grants from like-minded organisations and foundations, we would have ceased publication years earlier. But no one could have predicted that morning the significant impact that the psychological trauma would have, particularly on the country’s economy. The resulting economic slump pushed precarious enterprises like The Animals’ Agenda into severe financial distress. In 2002 we ceased publication, eventually merging with Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to form the Animals and Society Institute.

So, for this reason, and others widely shared by most people, I have no sympathy for bin Laden. Nevertheless, the scenes of celebration over his death disturb me. Taking joy in the death of another, including an animal, shows off our fear and arrogance. These raw emotions are hatred for those who we detest and pleasure in seeing their demise. What difference is there between the celebrations of those who were happy to learn of bin Laden’s death and his followers who found joy in the 2001 terrorist attacks?

The disgust I felt on seeing the recent celebrations forces me to confront how I feel about the forthcoming demise of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. For years, I’ve kept a bottle of Champagne in the fridge specifically for toasting on the “glorious day when Maggie dies.” Thatcher stood for everything I thought was wrong. She led a government which, in all but name, declared war on the British poor and working class. Tremors triggered by her premiership reverberate today. In fact, the present Conservative-led coalition government is Thatercherism revived and expanded. This is why the Champagne has been on ice for years, even on two continents. Further, I’ve made it clear to all who would listen that on the “glorious day when Maggie dies” I will be in my local pub celebrating. “Meet me there,” I said.

Now, I’m not so sure. To celebrate Maggie’s death in the way that I thought I would is to behave hypocritically. It is to be guilty of the same acts that I criticise those who celebrate bin Laden’s death and those who took pleasure in terrorism.

And just to be clear before anyone mischievously rushes to do so, I am not making any comparison between Osama bin Laden and Margaret Thatcher. If they do they will be guilty of hypocrisy, taking advantage hypocritically of Maggie’s death in the same callous way that they will no doubt be accusing me off while conveniently ignoring their own poisonous rhetoric.

So, how are we to recognise the death of someone who we hate so much?

It turns out that the Martin Luther King, Jr. quote much used lately is a fabrication. So, I won’t quote what he is to alleged to have said, “I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.”

Another recently used quote is also not true! Mark Twain never said, “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” So, I won’t quote him either.

So, how will I recognise the death of Margaret Thatcher?

Most likely, I will stay at home, nurture a glass of bubbly, playing loudly Robert Wyatt, the Clash, the Smiths and Henry Cow. And weep a little.

Late yesterday I or, rather, this Web site, received my/our first homophobic slur.

Homo

Not such a big deal, really. Could be a lot worse, of course. In the UK and throughout the world people, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, are routinely insulted, assaulted and killed for who they are.

Of course, the comment was sent it anonymously. The sender doesn’t even have the courage of their convictions to identify who they are. This is usually the case in such matters.

I approve comments submitted to this Web site before they appear. No doubt the sender was excited with the anticipation that it would harm me in some way. Well, it doesn’t. And I reject your comment. Instead, I’m writing to draw even more attention to it as a futile gesture on your part.

Besides you make feel mighty real to be even more proud of who I am. So much so that it’s time for Sylvester …..

As I wish to complete the manuscript for Animal Dharma by a non-negotiable imminent deadline, I am unavailable by email or phone, including Skype, until further notice. Pre-existing appointments will be honoured. The best way to contact me is by email. Please mark it URGENT in the header if you need me to get back in touch with you quickly. Thanks for your patience!

Further to Jonathan Porritt’s critique of the UK’s environmental movement’s response to the government’s forest fireside sale which is now been chopped (forgive the puns), he commented (before the government’s u-turn announcement yesterday) further about their response to the coalition’s initiative. I like his strategic approach.

So my simple suggestion for the Big 10 is this: start all over again, but urgently. Develop a joint position to maximise the massive leverage that your collective membership still commands.

Then approach Mrs Spelman with a deal: if she withdraws the relevant clauses in the Public Bodies Bill, you will hold back from launching a national, joint, high-profile campaign to oppose the current proposals root and branch – in effect, to take on some of the heavy-lifting that has been carried so far by 38 Degrees and some brilliant local campaigns.

In return, you offer to work with Defra, the Forestry Commission and representatives of local action groups to come up with some genuinely radical proposals on how best to improve and extend the Public Forest Estate, how best to involve community groups, NGOs and the private sector, how best to turn the turgid rhetoric about the “Big Society” into a living, breathing blueprint for sustainable forestry in the UK over the next 20/30 years.

And this might well include creative ideas about different patterns of ownership, different ways of optimising public benefit, and indeed different ways of improving the conditions of the 60% of privately owned woodlands in England that are already poorly managed from a commercial point of view and are providing zero public benefit.

Here is the trailer for an interesting new film, Nonviolence for a Change, which is commissioned by the Turning the Tide programme of Quaker Peace and Social Witness. There’s also a report in The Guardian about this which is written by Zoe Broughton, an undercover investigator who has worked at a number of facilities, including Huntingdon Life Sciences and for Compassion In World Farming.