Could this be the next incarnation of Veganism according to the “vegan strategist”?
Once again, the “vegan strategist” has shown how little about strategy or veganism he understands.
This time around he is revisiting his plan to label everyone vegan.
“Do 2 semi-vegans make 1 vegan?”
What Is A Semi-Vegan
To Tobias, someone is able to consume animal products and still call themselves vegan.
It all depends on frequency and intent. (more…)
It’s election time again in Australia.
Promises and policies are being wheeled out to entice us to put a 1 in their box.
Our social media feeds feature comments from friends saying that we should support this party, and not that one.
For some reason, people seem to assume that because I am vegan, and support rights for other animals, I will be voting for the Animal Justice Party.
I won’t be, and here are my reasons.
The Party Is Built On Deception
People I have spoken to are of the belief that the AJP are a vegan party.
They aren’t. (more…)
Once again Animals Australia and the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia at loggerheads.
This time it is over Animals Australia’s use of sports people in their latest campaign.
As is usually the case when preaching to the converted, the truth gets distorted.
Duck Shooting ISN’T A Sport
While the SSAA don’t defend duck shooting by claiming it is a sport, after saying previously that it wasn’t. (more…)
The redefining of veganism is gaining momentum. Mainstream media is latching onto faux-vegans to push their particular agenda.
Lately it seems to be that veganism is a diet.
The current flavour of the month seems to be Matt and Phil Letten (vegan bros), and Tobias Leenart (Vegan Strategist).
The Guardian, in their recent article, claim that this new batch of vegans are reinventing it.
The reality of things is that they are redefining what veganism is. (more…)
Before I Begin
This article has been sitting in my drafts folder for almost a week now.
Every time that I looked at it, I was of two minds about publishing it.
One thought was that we should ignore Gary L Francione and let him fade away into the dust of obscurity.
The other was, that by remaining silent I am giving him permission to continue. There was the added consideration that by speaking up myself, I may encourage others to do the same.
In the past I have made commented and written about the racist, ableist, or elitist language that Camp Francione use.
With this article, I am not going to hide or make any false claims about it being personal and hitting a nerve.
Something I have not been able to do with past articles.
If the words appear raw or passionate, as I said, this is personal.
So, without further ado, here it is.
Once again, a self-imposed leader of a vegan counter movement has thumbed his nose at people and said what he wants.
Once again, he has proved to us why his outdated views and attitude to others are no longer relevant for 2016.
Despite having explained to him how the language that he uses contradicts his stated ‘position’, he
It seems that every time he puts his fingers on the keyboard, he is saying something inflammatory.
Why then, does a movement he despises and doesn’t consider himself part of, give him air time?
Not A Laughing Matter
In what could only be described as an extremely poor attempt at humour, ‘Mr Intersectionality’ made light of the issue of suicide.
You can read that below.
All because of a political decision.
This Time It Is Personal
In the past I have written articles and made facebook posts about the ableist language that Gary Francione and his follower use.
This time he has gone too far.
As someone who’s life has felt the impact of suicide, both as a survivor and as someone left behind, the time has come to say enough is enough.
Gary Francione can no longer be part of the vegan movement, counter or otherwise, while he pays no attention to the damage that his words are doing.
The longer that he is not taken to task for his words, the more he begins to think that others agree with him.
He is also doing an untold amount of damage to other people.
This cannot and should not be allowed to continue.
Some Facts On The Seriousness
Suicide is kills more people in Australia than vehicles.
Last count, 2014, put the number at 2,500.
This means that on average seven people take their own life every day.
This makes it a serious public and mental health issue.
A mental health issue that is preventable.
For someone from such a privileged position to make light of a serious issue that touches the lives of so many people is inexcusable.
Playing A Fake Sympathy Card
Francione says that the reason he didn’t shoot himself that night was that it “would give too much satisfaction to those “animal advocates” who promote welfare reform and single-issue campaigns, and who reject veganism as a moral baseline”.
Making that comment also sticks to Francione’s narratives of being the victim of bullying by those who disagree with him, and that people want to do him harm.
Playing this card has no benefit for anyone other than Francione, as it fits into the death threat wielding stereotype that is popular at the moment.
As I have written before, and mentioned at the start of this article, it is time to stand up to the psychological abuse and degrading comments from those within the animal advocacy movement.
I will leave you with these words from Casey Taft of Vegan Publishers
Within the animal advocacy movement, there seems to be a bit of confusion about shelter kill lists.
Some say they are a single issue campaign, yet other proclaim that they aren’t.
So, are they or aren’t they?
What Is An SIC
To decide whether something is or isn’t a single issue campaign, we need to understand what one is.
The simplest way to define it is as follows:
A campaign that elevates a specific situation of one species or group of species as more morally relevant than other species in a similar or identical situation.
For example. The Ban Live Export campaigns are a single issue. They want the live export of animals to other countries, for them to kill to stop. While ignoring the live transportation and killing of animals at home.
Another example would be the anti-fur campaigns. These target those who wear fur, yet pay no attention to those who wear leather.
Kill Lists Are Speciesist.
Using the definition above, shelter “kill lists” ARE a single issue campaign.
They are also speciesist.
They promote the status of cats and dogs or any other animal the shelter may have, above others.
There is no mention of the thousands of animals who will be killed every day for food.
Or for clothing.
Or for medial research.
The reality of these lists is that they are nothing more than a ransom list.
You either pay $X to “rescue” the animal or they will be killed.
Are These Lists Abolitionist Friendly?
In a nutshell, no they aren’t and this is why.
One of the main points for those who are abolitionist is to remove the property status of other animals.
Kill lists further entrench the view that animals are property.
Those who ‘rescue’ the animal, are buying them to keep them as their own.
It doesn’t matter what warm and fuzzy term you attach to it.
You are buying an animal. Plain and simple.
An animal who is YOUR property.
Hang On. I Don’t View My Refugee As Property.
In today’s society, and under the eyes of the law, it doesn’t matter what you choose to call them.
The animal you ‘rescued’ from the shelter is your property.
You have to abide by the laws of your area with regards to the keeping of pets.
This could be registration, licencing, micro-chipping, and so on.
Then there is also the issue that by keeping a pet yourself, you are telling and showing others that it is acceptable to do the same.
What About Their Right To Life?
Now this is where things get complicated.
When you ‘rescue’ an animal, you are ignoring some rights of the animal.
Their right to life is important.
As is their right to not be property.
Along with any number of other rights that are ignored when you own a pet.
There is also the other issue that what if the animal you are ‘rescuing’ isn’t able to cope with a plant based diet?
You would then have no other choice except to feed your ‘rescued’ animal other animals.
What makes the life of your ‘rescued’ animal more important than the life of those?
If we have a look at why Francione says single issue campaigns are bad, the same applies to kill lists.
First, SICs convey the idea that some forms of exploitation are worse than other forms of exploitation.
This is exactly what kill lists do.
We don’t see people posting and sharing the lists for the sale yards. Aren’t those animals worth “rescuing” too?
Second, SICs simply cannot work as a practical matter.
While it is still seen as acceptable to own a pet, there will always be kill lists. Then there is also the buying into the multi-billion dollar companion animal industry.
An industry that wants you to continue buying animals as pets.
Third, many single-issue campaigns encourage speciesism.
This has been discussed above.
Fourth, some single-issue campaigns often promote other forms of human discrimination.
To this point, kill lists promote the worst form of human discrimination.
Discrimination based on socio-economic status.
Only those who are wealthy enough to have their own home, and enough surplus funds are able to “rescue” an animal.
The rest are left to feel like they aren’t doing enough, despite doing all that they can just to survive.
What are your thoughts on kill lists?
Are they single issue campaigns?
Leave your comments below.