Slacktivism

About The Race That Stops The Nation

by
123
Photo Credit: Bigbetting.com.au via Compfight cc

Once again the Race That Stops The Nation,The Melbourne Cup, has been clouded in controversy. This time due to the deaths of two horses, Admire Rakti and Araldo, after the race had been run.

And once again, so-called animal ‘protection’ groups are calling for racing to be banned, and/or people to ‘pledge’ not to bet on racing whilst horses die.

All this is fine and dandy for those groups as it will allow them to build on their 15 mins of fame, and in the case of Animals Australia – increase awareness of their ‘brand’.

Though will it really do anything with regards to the way that humans view other animals?

Sadly, I will have to say no.

To begin with, as long as betting on horses is seen as a way of striking it rich, and horse racing is promoted as the sport of kings it will continue to exist.

Mind you having a look at some of the photos of Flemington racetrack AFTER the event, I believe that it should be renamed the sport of slobs. Sadly, that sort of behaviour isn’t only reserved for racing and is more indicative of our collective lack of respect for pretty much everything.

It is a virtual uphill battle to have other animals given equal consideration when even those who supposedly care for them the most still view them as nothing more than an object. Take the following quote by Mick Moroney, the trainer of Araldo.

Nothing could be done to save the horse after scans showed its pastern had been broken in seven places and resembled a “bag of ice”.

Read more

Hunters Are Bloodthirsty Barbaric Cowards

by
Hunters Are Bloodthirsty Barbaric Cowards

Hunters Are Bloodthirsty Barbaric CowardsThese are the words spoken by self proclaimed animal liberationist Felicity Anderson when she appeared on a recent episode of SBS’ Living With The Enemy. These words have also been echoed by a number of other vegans claiming that hunters will never go vegan.

I wonder if any of those people have stopped to consider how close to the truth are those comments really are?

If the comments are just sweeping generalisations, is any consideration paid to the damage both to the movement and to other activists that they may be causing?

Are Hunters Bloodthirsty?

Having been a hunter for a number of years before and after turning vegan, I can tell you that the majority of people who hunt actually aren’t bloodthirsty monsters.

Sure there may be a few who enjoy and participate in hunting because they view it as a blood sport, though in my experience they are in the minority.

This would be the same as saying that all vegans are left winged misanthropic hippies who are out of touch with reality.

Read more

Vegan Police. Keeping The Faith, or Turning People Away

by
alt text
Vegan Police. Keeping The Faith, or Turning People Away - VeganPolice.com.au
Vegan Police. Keeping The Faith, or Turning People Away
source: unknown

Recently an article published on Vegan.com about the Vegan Police has been doing the rounds of various facebook groups.

Before I go any further on my thoughts on the article, this needs to be said.

As far as I am concerned, and based on my experience, there are usually only two types of people who use the term vegan police. Those who are bullies and those who knowing consume animal products. Both types use the term to shift the focus from them to the person who made the comment or asked the question.

I should also add that calling someone the vegan police is used to bully, ostracise, otherise or offend that person into silence or others into submission in the same way that those who follow Gary Francione label everyone else as a new welfarist.

There is no other reason for someone who claims to be vegan to use it to describe someone else who also claims to be vegan.

Read more

“Ag-Gag”: Scaremongering or Legitimate Concerns

by
Ag-gag. Scaremongering or legitimate concern
Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

A little over two months ago I wrote a piece saying that as far as I was concerned, I believed that so-called ‘ag-gag’ laws would be the best thing that could happen to the animal advocacy movement as it would change the focus from treatment to use of other animals.

Since then, more and more ‘animal advocates’ have started to fly the anti ‘ag-gag’ flag.

Even though they are starting to sound like chicken little with their endless preaching of doom and gloom the reality of things is more then a little different to what we are being told.

Sure the media and politicians are branding talk of draft bills as ag-gag, though that hardly means that they are. We all know that sensationalism is what the media thrives on, and politicians only respond to that which will get them votes and time in the media.

That being said, and understanding that both sides will say whatever will get them the most publicity, it is time to sort out fact from fiction

Activists Are Not A Law Unto Themselves.

First and foremost, we need to realise that those new laws have come about because ‘activists’ are ignoring the laws that we currently have.

Despite whatever altruistic reasons are being given for breaking the law, the law is still broken.

If these people are willing to break the law with trespass and property damage to get incriminating evidence, where will they draw the line?

On the other side of the coin, seeing as digital piracy is another issue that is gaining attention, I am sure that these activists wouldn’t mind if a farmer broke in a placed a camera above the area where they use their computer to ensure that have purchased the correct licenses for the software they are using.

After all, fair is fair.

Disregard For Animal Safety

Read more

Animals On Show

by

Please indulge me with this hypothetical for a moment.

Let’s say that the time is 50,60 or even 100 years ago.

The female human is thought of as an object that the males of the species can do with as he wants.

Females are readily kept in cages, denied access to education, socialisation and forced to perform tasks against they wouldn’t normally do through behaviour modification.

Let’s also say that there is a growing movement that wants females to be treated and considered as equals.

How would they go about achieving this?

Read more

The Speciesist Nature Of Animal Advocacy

by

3345Have you noticed how it is becoming more and more popular and acceptable to ‘advocate’ for a particular animal at the expense of another?

We see it most weekends at our local supermarkets/hardware store where a Save The ‘X’ group is having a sausage sizzle to raise funds for their designated animal.

Unfortunately for the animals, these types of campaigns aren’t only reserved for those ‘small’ groups that don’t know any better.

Animals Australia does it with their Make It Possible campaign, and their continual focus on land based food animals who are kept in factory farms, show total disregard for those animals raised for research or aquatic animals raised in aquaculture.

The Animal Liberation franchise does it in nearly everything that they do.

Read more

Aussie Farms And Chris Delforce. Raising awareness or setting things back?

by
Tweet
Pin
Share
Share
0 Shares

Australian ‘food’ animals have a new saviour in the Aussie Farms group of websites all thanks to the new poster boy for animal ‘rights’, Mr Chris Delforce.

Whilst Mr Delforce is gleefully enjoying his 15 minutes of fame thanks to an eager media, it appears that he is paying very little attention to the damage that his comments and websites are doing to ‘the movement’.

Unfortunately, the more that Mr Delforce and his Aussie Farms website(s) appear in agricultural media, the more that animal advocates are being demonised, and the harder things will become in the future.

Confusing Position

Mr Delforce is another one of a growing number of people who have labelled themselves as ‘Animal Rights Activists’, and have paid very little thought to what that actually means. Maybe ‘animal rights’ is the new black.

In a deleted facebook discussion the question was asked on the Aussie Farms fan page how they envisioned these ‘rights’ being granted. Would it be through the granting of a type of personhood or via legislated rights, and would it apply to all animals, or only those used for food.

Their response was we’re more interested in achieving a paradigm shift (as discussed in the interview) in the way animals are viewed, so that people view them not as stock or property, but as living, sentient animals who have a desire and a right to not be abused, exploited or killed. Laws prohibiting the killing of animals can only come as a result of this.

This appears to be contradictory to the footage and images that are on the Aussie Farms website. All I have been able to find are images and footage of other animals as they are used in the animal agricultural system. There are no scientific reports of the sentience of other animals, evidence of their desire to live or anything for that matter that would lead the viewer/reader to believe that they are anything else than property.

If it is Mr Delforce and Aussie Farms’ true intent to ‘convert’ people to veganism, they appear to have gone about it the wrong way.

Gruesome footage doesn’t get people to change their minds or create a paradigm shift. If it did, then the government wouldn’t have resorted to plain paper packaging for cigarettes after the ‘shocking’ photos, and we would be seeing ‘shocking’ images on TV in an attempt to improve the road toll.

No Alternatives In Mind

Despite Mr Delforce knowing that the media would be talking to him regarding the sites, and his intentions, he never bothered to present an alternative to animal agriculture.

Read more