I will be chairing three consecutive panels of experts on (1) What’s the most effective way to encourage and help people go — and stay — vegan?; (2) What’s the most effective way to campaign for living as a vegan and make vegan values mainstream?; (3) What do we imagine a vegan society to be like? Panelists include Martin Ashby MD, UK; Jasmijn de Boo, Vegan Society, UK; Matthew Glover & Jane Land, Veganuary, UK; Melanie Joy, author Carnism, Germany (TBC); Dobrusia Karbowiak, Open Cages, Poland; Hilda Kean, author & historian, UK; Tobias Leenaert, Consultant, EVA, Belgium; Kerry McCarthy MP, UK; Sean O’Callaghan, Fay Gay Vegan, UK.
Earlier this month I had the honour to be the keynote speaker at the annual general meeting of Eurogroup for Animals when it met in Brussels. Its mission is to “build a Europe that cares for animals” and is a “confederation of 46 like minded organisations that can mobilise millions of citizens to defend the welfare of animals and act to ensure European, national and local decision makers take note and respond to our concerns.”
Eurogroup is an example of a mutually-supportive coalition of diverse pro-animal organisations that I have always advocated for. Check out their priorities here and follow them on Twitter as @Act4AnimalsEU.
Eurogroup is led by a board of directors representing a cross-section of its organisational membership and their director, Reineke Hameleers.
I’m truly grateful to Reineke for encouraging her colleagues to agree for me to be the keynote speaker. She had read my book Growl on holiday last year and found it to be engaging and inspiring. In the introduction to my presentation, she encouraged everyone to read Growl. The keynote presentation was an opportunity to explore some of what I have to say in Growl, including the four key values in animal rights and the five stages of social movements. I concluded with a series of recommendations which provoked a positive discussion about the various ways forward for animals.
As someone who is an enthusiastic supporter of a united Europe with the UK’s active participation, I welcome Eurogroup for Animals as an important force for the moral and legal status of animals in society.
In 1975 Peter Singer published Animal Liberation, which became one of the impulses for the contemporary animal rights movement. Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and the moral philosophy he espouses in Animal Liberation is based upon the recognition of sentience in nonhuman animals and the consequent necessity that their interests ought to be included in any decision making.
If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. So the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient if not strictly accurate shorthand for the capacity to suffer and/or experience enjoyment) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some other characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary manner. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin colour? (9)
It was not until 1983 and the publication of The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan that we had a comprehensive and thorough account for moral rights for nonhuman animals. Utilitarianism and the natural rights view, along with ecofeminsim, have become the three traditions in Animal Ethics.
The University of Rennes recently held a conference, La Liberation Animale: Quarante ans plus tard, to
return to the link between the animal liberation movement and the theories of Peter Singer who, rightly or wrongly, is seen as its founding father. How was Singer’s animal ethics greeted after the publication of Animal Liberation? What feedback did it get from the animal rights movement? What are the conceptual and practical developments of contemporary animal liberation? What place does the utilitarian doctrine and its consequentialist basis occupy in the work of Singer and in the discussion it generated? What are the approaches in animal ethics to which Singer’s publication led?
The keynote speakers were Peter Singer and philosophers Lori Gruen, Jean-Yves Goffi, and Tatjana Visak. The presentations were roughly divided between French and English. I couldn’t understand the former. My French is limited to ordering coffee or beer. I also had trouble with the latter. I’m self-taught in philosophy and unfamiliar with some of the ideas and issues discussed–even when they were in English! Nonetheless, I appreciated listening to Peter Singer’s assessment of the impact of Animal Liberation forty years on and Lori Gruen’s description of entangled empathy as an alternative animal ethic.
I was honoured to be selected–perhaps even as the only speaker who isn’t a philosopher–to present at the conference. My presentation, in a workshop called “Law and Politics,” was a specially adapted version of my talk, “Animal Liberation: Moral Crusade or Political Movement?”
I recalled my working with Peter Singer since the 1970s and 1980s and how reading Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics had been influential in my understanding of animal rights. I recommend Practical Ethics as an overview of Peter’s philosophy as it relates to such issues as abortion and euthanasia. Subsequent revised editions have been published.
I described how my thinking in animal ethics has evolved from reading and hearing speak Singer, Regan and such ecofeminists as Carol Adams, Marti Kheel, and Lori Gruen. In short, when I speak about animal rights as a matter for the law I draw from Regan’s natural rights view but my heart is more with ecofeminism. I turn to utilitarianism to help inform my everyday decision making.
Speaking at this conference was an opportunity to recognise Peter Singer as more than just the author of Animal Liberation. While I made it clear that I don’t always agree with everything that he says and writes, for example, I don’t identify as a utilitarian, I recognise Peter as a philosopher whose influence is significant. Particularly I admire how he addresses such issues as environmental protection, climate, poverty, world hunger, and the effectiveness of charities while situating animal liberation as part of these issues which, in turn, is part of a larger, progressive agenda of social change.
I will be making my presentation ‘Animal Liberation: Moral Crusade or Political Movement?’ The conference celebrates the 40th anniversary publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer and explores the issues it raises.
In 2007 I returned to live in the UK from 20 years of working in the USA. Since then, there have been two British general elections: in 2010 that led to the formation of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition and this month with the election of a Conservative government. In the 1970s and 1980s I played a prominent role in the original ‘Putting Animals into Politics’ campaign which was organised by a coalition of national animal welfare groups called the General Election Coordinating Committee for Animal Protection. The sequel to my first book, Growl, is called The Animal Rights Challenge, which will argue that the greatest challenge the animal rights movement faces is making the moral and legal status of animals a mainstream political issue. It is from this starting point that I briefly evaluate here the effectiveness of the British animal welfare movement in the 2010 and 2015 elections, and how it is responding to the political mainstream challenge. An understanding of the situation in the UK will help to inform animal advocates not only in the UK but throughout the world on how they can improve their advocacy.
First, a note about terminology: While recognising the important ideological differences between animal welfare, animal rights, and animal protection, the tradition in the UK is to use animal welfare and not animal rights, whereas in the USA it is customary to say animal protection and animal rights. For the purposes of this commentary, I will use the terms animal rights and the animal rights movement but use animal welfare and animal welfare movement when I am specifically referring to the situation in the UK. I use animal rights and the animal rights movement as labels to describe an expansive interpretation of the moral and legal status of animals. I recognise this is problematic and will explore this issue further in my next book.
From my personal experience and from talking with many animal advocates over the years, I conclude we tend to believe animal cruelty and exploitation will inevitably stop when everyone goes vegan thereby enabling the animal rights movement to achieve moral and legal rights for animals. This was my view for many years; however, the more I learned about social movements and understood the animal rights movement as a social movement, the more I came to understand that the most effective role the animal rights movement can have is as a catalyst on society. It will be society that will determine if animals deserve rights and not the animal rights movement.
Further, I now see social movements, as with the animal rights movement, as having to be fully engaged in all of the following five stages to fulfil their mission:
- Public education: when people are enlightened about the issue and embrace it in their lives
- Public policy development: when the political parties, businesses, schools, professional associations, and other entities that constitute society adopt sympathetic positions on the issue
- Legislation: when laws are passed on the issue
- Enforcement: when laws are implemented and, if necessary, litigated
- Public acceptance: when the issue is embraced by the majority of society
I see the animal rights movement as mostly in stage one with some activity in stages two, three, and four. I characterise this present situation for the animal rights movement as a moral crusade but we need to be also a social movement. In truth, we need to be both. In other words, animal advocates function presently as moral crusaders when we need to be also political operatives or social justice advocates. This is why I no longer believe in pressing for voluntary behavioural change, that is to say vegan, cruelty-free living, as the principal focus of the animal rights movement; and why our greatest challenge is to make animal rights a mainstream political issue. By saying the animal rights movement will neither achieve animal rights nor persuade everyone to go vegan is not to suggest that all we do is pointless. Our work for animals is vital and valuable. It is having an effect. We must continue. People are changing how they live and what they believe, and how companies use animals. But as a recent study from the Humane Research Council showed, optional personal lifestyle choice of vegan, cruelty-free living is fickle as is public opinion. In short, individual change is good but institutional change is better.
The best role we can hope for the animal rights movement to have is to act as a catalyst on society, particularly in public policy and legislation. Optional personal lifestyle choice of vegan, cruelty-free living is preferred. But institutional change is essential for those who will never care. Public policy and laws mandating legal and enforceable and effective animal protection force people to behave differently. Laws mandate how people behave. They also embody the values we hold in society. A failure to comply with legislation places the non-compliant in a position of breaking the law and the risk of penalty from enforcement. Now, I realise this is a simplistic interpretation. There is much to discuss about how democracies function. Or do not as the case maybe. We live in flawed democracies. Or worse. Nonetheless, this is the context in which we campaign for animal rights.
But is institutional change (e.g., political party positions, public policy, regulations, legislation, law enforcement) the focus and mission of the animal rights movement?
While there is some activity in these areas (stages 2, 3, 4), most of the attention of the animal rights movement is on saving animals from harm and campaigning for optional lifestyle choice (stage 1). While these are urgent actions the animal rights movement should be doing and continue to do, are they important? Well, yes, of course, they are important but their urgency is due to the animal rights movement not making important the strategy of pursuing animal rights as a mainstream political issue. We need laws to stop people and companies from behaving in ways that abuse animals because it will not always be done voluntarily. In the fulness of time, as more effective and enforced animal protection laws are passed onto the statute book, the urgent need for intervention to aid at-risk animals will be reduced. Smoking, for example, was reduced and restricted by public education (e.g., ads on cigarette packets) but it was until not public policy (e.g., legislation on smoking in public places) that the greatest impact was made on people’s behaviour.
If we accept that not everyone and not every company will go vegan, the only way forward is to make animal rights a mainstream political issue. Because the animal rights movement has not made this a priority is the reason why animal advocates perpetually face elected representatives, with a small number of welcome exceptions, who are indifferent at best and hostile at worst to how animals are treated. It is not a question of public education over public policy or vice versa. Both are needed. But presently our focus is more on voluntary individual lifestyle change than it is on institutional change and public policy and legislation.
General elections are important. Not only for such issues as the economy but also for determining the values we place in our relationship with animals. They are opportunities to advance the agenda for animals and elect individuals as candidates and political parties as governments who embrace animal rights and committed to a legislative agenda to meet this objective. I cannot be the only one who is fed up with living under governments and represented by elected people who do not care about animals!
When I compare the British animal welfare movement and its response to the general elections of 1979 and 1983 with 2010 and 2015, I am disappointed at the lack of overall progress made as a social movement in our sophistication in taking advantage of these opportunities. There should have been in the decades between the 1970s and 2010s more achieved in establishing animal welfare as a mainstream political issue. We failed to persuade the political parties of the importance of animal welfare as an issue that matters to the electorate, which is disturbing given how popular animal welfare is in opinion polls. In short, we are not transforming our moral crusade into a political movement. Instead, we have regressed to relying upon using general elections as opportunities to raise funds and launch websites. Moreover, there is more to political life than a general election every five years!
There is a lack of vision, understanding and long-term strategic thinking in the British animal welfare movement about itself and its role as a social movement. To be sure there is much good work that is done. There are many accomplishments to highlight. But we are not rising to the challenge of making animal protection a mainstream political issue. In Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights authors Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka challenge the status quo of the animal rights movement with insightful analysis and offer an innovative approach on how it is possible to move forward. They do not have all the answers. But this book is required reading if anyone wants to get serious about challenging the institution of animal cruelty and exploitation.
Animal advocates should also read such books as Compassion Is the Bugler by Clive Hollands and Animal Revolution by Richard Ryder to learn about the history of the animal welfare movement and what was accomplished and how it was achieved in the 1979 and 1983 general elections. There is also an informative chapter by Clive Hollands in the first edition of In Defence of Animals edited by Peter Singer.
The ‘Putting Animals into Politics’ campaign comprised of a coalition of organisations which published a manifesto that they took to the country nationally, by lobbying the central offices of the political parties, and locally, by mobilising in the constituencies. The participating organisations motivated their members collectively to question candidates individually and publicly at the hustings. The interests of individual organisations were put to one side as part of a greater coalition with shared objectives. Everyone benefitted, including the animals, who, for the first time, had their interests represented in the manifestos of the political parties. In 2010 and 2015 there was no such coalition. Instead, those groups which participated in the general election (not all did) published their own manifestoes and dedicated websites. There appeared to be very little encouragement in one-to-one contacts between animal advocates and candidates.
So, what is to be done?
In short, we need to make animal rights a mainstream political issue so that when political parties form governments they bring with them an understanding of the issue and a commitment to implementing an agenda of effective public policy. Then, it is our responsibility to ensure that governments fulfil them during their term in office. Then, at subsequent elections, we hold them to account, along with the other political parties to ensure at the very least unsympathetic parties are not elected to form governments. Moreover, the time between elections, which now occur with biannual frequency when local, national and EU elections are considered, provides an ideal opportunity to raise animal rights with candidates who seek our support.
Here are some ideas for what can be done:
- Evaluate, develop and reassess long-term strategies with the Five-Stage Analysis of social movements to position animal rights as Public Education and as Public Policy
- Build alliances with non-animal rights organisations, civic groups, professional associations, businesses, NGOs, etc., where shared interests and common ground exists
- Invest in international coalitions with like-minded groups
- Position animal rights within a larger social and political context
- Establish a permanent movement-wide initiative targeting local, general and European elections
- Stay focused on political parties, elected representatives and government employees to ensure accountability
- Join the political party of your choice and work from within to advance animal rights without allowing oneself to become known as someone who only cares about animals
- Support such groups as the Conservatives Against Fox Hunting who work within political parties in support of animals
- Focus on marginal constituencies where a relatively small number of votes determines who gets elected and candidates are particularly sensitive to constituents’s concerns
- Ensure the election and re-election of candidates who speak out for animals and are vegetarian or vegan
- Encourage national groups to organise lobby groups of their own supporters within each political party
- Target elected representatives who consistently oppose animal interests
- Ensure that every action for animals has a public policy component
At the RSPCA Rights of Animals symposium at Trinity College in Cambridge, Lord Houghton of Sowerby who chaired GECCAP said:
My message is that animal welfare, in the general and in the particular, is largely a matter for the law. This means that to Parliament we must go. Sooner or later that is where we will have to go. That is where laws are made and where the penalties for disobedience and the measures for enforcement are laid down.
Lord Houghton’s words are as relevant today as they were in 1977. It is about time more attention was given to them.
The Brighton Vegfest UK held a special Party Political Conference where politicians from the UK’s major political parties presented manifestos on health, environment and food sustainability, and animal welfare. This special conference was held because of the general election to be held on Thursday, May 7.
Vegfest UK is to be congratulated for not only hosting the conference but also for its success. The speakers included Caroline Allen (Green), Chris Bowers (LibDems) Paul Chandler (LibDems), Vanessa Hudson (Animal Welfare Party), Councillor Mary Mears (Conservative), Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour), Purna Sen (Labour), Henry Smith MP (Conservative), and Keith Taylor MEP (Green).
These are the introductory remarks that I made at the beginning of the final session of the conference. The focus of which was animal welfare. For more on my views on making animal protection a mainstream political issue, please read my book, Growl, and visit the Animal Rights Challenge pages on this website.
By the way, Vegfest UK announced that 12,000 visitors attended the event over the weekend of March 28-29.
Some basic assumptions first based upon 40 years of experience as a full time vegan animal rights campaigner.
Not everyone is going to go vegetarian or vegan.
Not everyone is going to embrace animal rights.
The animal rights movement isn’t going to achieve moral and legal rights for animals.
Which begs the questions: What is the role of the animal rights movement? What is our single greatest challenge?
Our role is to act as a catalyst on society to educate and inspire individual action.
Our single greatest challenge is to make animal rights a mainstream political issue.
Because if not everyone is going care as we do, we need laws — progressive and enforced — to protect animals with moral and legal rights.
To achieve this we need to embed the values of animal rights into the ideology of the mainstream political parties.
And this is why this debate is very important.
As someone who was an organiser in the first Putting Animals into Politics campaigns in the 1970s and 1980s, my assessment of our track record in making animal rights a mainstream political issue is mixed.
Mixed in the sense that there is progress to report. A general shift in the direction toward awareness of animal issues and interest in vegan, cruelty-free living. Vegfest is testimony to the progress. But a recent study in the USA showed that of US adults age 17 and over:
2% are current vegetarian/vegan
10% are former vegetarian/vegan
88% have never been vegetarian/vegan
This substantiates my concern about relying upon social justice for animals as an optional, cruelty-free lifestyle choice and, in particular, framing vegan living as a fashionable thing to do. Trends come and go. Public opinion is fickle.
Individual change is good and essential.
But institutional change as well is better and enduring but more difficult to achieve. Enduing because once a law is a law it’s difficult to change it.
From here I improvised on closing remarks underscoring the importance of the conference.
Animal Rights Explained
What does animal rights mean? Is it the same as animal welfare? How different are moral rights and legal rights? Which organisations should I support? Is being a vegan compulsory? Bring your questions, along with your tips on how to be a more effective campaigner, to this interactive workshop.
We want nothing less than a complete reform of the Parliamentary system. It’s about not just removing the unfairness and injustice that the present Government represents, but removing the corrupt system that spawned it and all recent Governments. And it’s about radically changing the composition of Parliament – moving it forward, consigning the failed two-party system to history.
Brian and Save Me’s CEO, Anne Brummer, kindly invited me to write the following article for publication on in the Experts section of the Common Decency website.
Common Decency and Animal Welfare
The common decency is to treat others as you would want them to treat you.
Perhaps this is easier said than done.
Certainly, it’s easier with those with whom we love. Our family and friends are special to us precisely because of our intense relationship with them. A bond that is grounded in love and respect, intimacy and loyalty. We know they will be there for us when we need them to be. As we would be there for them should they need us.
But what about those who are outside of our immediate circle? Other people whom we may know but not well or, if we do, we don’t like. Do we treat them as you would want them to treat you?
Then, there are strangers. People we’ve never met. We know nothing about them. Other than from what we see from looking at them. And then we may not always be correct in our assumptions. People often aren’t what they appear to be. Or how we think they should behave.
I’d like to think that if I saw someone — anyone — who needed help I would do my best to assist them. But I don’t always give change to the homeless people who I walk past. I don’t always think to wait for others when I board a train. I’m distracted. My mind is elsewhere. I’m tired. It’s been a long day. And I want to get home. I think of myself. Nonetheless, despite my failings in living up to the standard I hold in others, I would like to believe that if I ever needed help someone would come to my assistance.
Surely one of the definitions of a civilised society is that people generally help each other. We respect each other even if we don’t know or like them. We may not be perfect but we’re making progress. Within just a few generations, our feelings have changed toward others who we thought were not like us. But there’s still much to do. Clearly, prejudices persist. We don’t always treat others as we would expect them to treat us. Our society has yet to rid itself of racism and all the other prejudices that may appear to make us different. But on further study our differences reveal how we are all remarkably the same. ‘If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?’ asked Shylock in Shakespeare’s ‘The Merchant of Venice.’
A kneeling African in chains in a logo designed by Josiah Wedgwood in the 1780s asked, ‘Am I Not a Man and a Brother?’ Whereas Black Lives Matter declares a contemporary US-based international movement with the same name. Is this not part of a continuum of struggle for recognition and rights, and compassion and respectful treatment, which speaks not only for those subjugated but also for everyone?
Those campaigning throughout the world for animals and their welfare, protection and rights push the boundaries of common decency further and beyond our own species. They demand nonhuman animals receive the same respectful treatment that we hold (or should hold) for the members of our own species. Animal advocates don’t demand that animals should have the right to vote. But animals are like us. They bleed when they are cut.
It’s time for the golden rule of respectful treatment to be extended to include all species. This is why Common Decency is committed to animal welfare. We see our treatment of animals not only as an important political issue — animals deserve far tougher laws than they have — but also as a reflection of ourselves and our own society.