Vegan Animal Rights Group Refuses To Promote Veganism

The night of Tuesday 23 April 2013 will forever be remembered as one of the most disgraceful nights in the history of the animal advocacy movement in Queensland, if not Australia.

It was the night that an alleged vegan animal rights group, aggressively ejected two individuals for wanting to promote veganism and to help other animals.

The shameful series of events took place at the screening of the movie Maximum Tolerated Dose on Queensland’s Gold Coast.

The public screening was a collaboration between Animal Liberation Queensland and the Facebook group Coast To Coast Animal Friends, two organisations that a reasonable person would think would be interested in promoting veganism and educating others on where to buy products that haven’t been tested on or contain animal products.Yet this wasn’t what happened.

Being aware that there was a number of gaps in the information that both Coast To Coast Animal Friends, and Animal Liberation Queensland give to the public, two individuals took the initiative to do something for the animals and compile a list of vegan suitable products that are available from a majority of supermarkets, thereby making it easier for people to adopt a vegan lifestyle.

These two people, who had the permission of the cafe where the public screening was being held, were bullied and aggressively ejected from the public screening by five people from Animal Liberation Queensland and Coast To Coast Animal Friends.

Whilst I can understand why those involved in Coast To Coast Animal Friends wouldn’t want anything vegan related promoted at any of their events, I cannot understand why Animal Liberation Queensland wouldn’t want to help more people adopt a vegan lifestyle by letting them know what products are suitable for vegans.

The fact that the current president of Animal Liberation Queensland, Chay Neal, stood back and allowed this to happen is disgraceful. I am also lead to believe that the past president of Animal Liberation Queensland, Annette Guice, took a leading part in kicking these two people out, which is as equally disgraceful.

Every current supporter, volunteer, and member of Animal Liberation Queensland needs to ask them why they held this event in conjunction with Coast To Coast Animal Friends in the first place. Especially considering that Coast To Coast Animal Friends, is not a vegan organisation, or even one that is concerned with animal rights.

Coast To Coast Animal Friends openly supports the violent and aggressive 269Life movement. (A number of the groups ‘leaders’ have 269 tattoos, despite not actually being vegan themselves.) I also am highly suspect of the group’s founder’s knowledge of the plight of other animals, as she may not actually be vegan herself, despite deceiving others into believing that she is.

It is probably also worth mentioning that one of the aggressive five who is part of Coast To Coast Animal Friends, and also has a 269 tattoo, claims to have been vegan for near on 30 years – apart from the ‘occasional’ lapse where seafood is consumed.

Whilst myself and my family have been bullied by people from these organisations in the past, the fact that no one questioned them, or held them accountable, has lead them to believe that they are indeed beyond reproach, and are able to do the same to anyone else who dare question what they are doing.

[GARD]Despite their alleged best intentions, Tuesday night was nothing more than a fundraising activity for both of the groups, and thinly veiled attempt to attract new members.

In this campaign for equal consideration for other animals,I am reminded of Voltaire’s quote “With great power comes great responsibility”.

Those organisations that claim to be on the front line, have the responsibility to other animals to ensure that their egos and agendas are left at the door, and that the animals are put first.

When we fail to do this, whilst we may feel good about ‘protecting’ a particular organisation or bullying another advocate into silence, ultimately it will be the animals that suffer.

Both Animal Liberation Queensland, and Coast To Coast Animal Friends failed to respond requests for comment.

6 thoughts on “Vegan Animal Rights Group Refuses To Promote Veganism”

  1. Very precise and correct Cameron. It’s extremely disappointing as why put on a movie screening and not help campaign to stop animal killing at the Uni of Qld, which is right under ALQ noses? And to disallow and throw out vegans who are wanting to help non vegans adopt a compassionate lifestyle is beyond me. I left coast to coast as the leader and her offsider are control freaks who bully individuals and dislike anyone with good ideas or rights campaigning. C2C is welfareist and ALQ is just a disgrace to the Animal Liberation movement. In my opinion we need a new animal rights liberation group and one that actively promotes veganism daily and puts their insecurities and egos in a box and never open it again. I sent Chay documents to help the circus protest and no reply. Myself and my deceased partner sent Annette many emails, letters and phone calls re UQ killings and no reply ever. What strangle hold do these president and ex president have over their committee? Good on Vegans Unite for promoting veganism and calling it how it is, cheers Simone

  2. Animal Liberation isn’t really a vegan organisation (or an animal rights group in the strict sense), and the philosophy of animal liberation, outlined in Peter Singer’s book of the same name, isn’t about veganism.

    The idea of ‘animal liberation’ that Peter outlines isn’t opposed to animal use, provided it’s done ‘humanely.’

    Many people in AL the organisation recognise the problem with animal use goes deeper than reducing consumption or being vegetarian, but they continue to follow the principles behind the book, first published in 1975. They may personally believe in veganism, yet not realise that AL is in conflict with it, since veganism is based on the idea that animals have a right not to be used: AL isn’t.

    Here’s the Wikipedia article about it:

    • Thank you for your comment Rico.

      If you follow the links in the article you will see a facebook comment where Animal Liberation Queensland said they were in deed a vegan organisation. Similarly, the next link goes to their own website where they aim to contribute to the animal rights movement.

      With these things being stated online for all to see, what else is a reasonable person supposed to think?

  3. Without knowing anything else, that ALQ are a vegan animal rights organisation.

    But we’re talking about what’s actually the case, not what people claim it is. Isn’t that what the article’s about?

    A one line comment doesn’t make an organisation. It would be fascinating to see if that view is reflected in the group’s constitution/rules.

    The Facebook comment doesn’t negate the fact that if you accept Peter Singer’s view of ‘animal liberation’ then you accept animal use to some degree. He literally ‘wrote the book’ on animal liberation. The various AL groups in Australia took their names from it. As i mentioned, though, that doesn’t mean people are aware of this sense of what AL means.

    Just like vegetarians who aren’t aware of what goes on to get milk and eggs.

    If you have a look at AL’s second link – their own website – the last paragraph explains how they’ll provide information and support to people that want to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.

    Another page on their website is called Vegan and Vegetarian:

    The website displays various other examples of conflicts with veganism. They have a page called What Is Factory Farming?, where they ask people to boycott eggs and factory farmed flesh, rather than become vegan. ‘Modify your shopping habits bit by bit to eliminate the products of these [factory farming] industries.’

    Another example: on their page called Australasian Animal Rights Groups, they link to the Australian Guide to Sustainable Living. This brings up the site EcoDirectory, where you can find sources of organic eggs and ‘meat’:

    As to being an animal rights group, i made clear that i was talking about animal rights in the ‘strict sense’, not the loosely used term that refers to any changes on behalf of nonhuman animals as ‘animal rights.’ For instance, attempts to ban live export might be referred to as ‘animal rights’:

    If we follow this standard, though, the RSPCA could be considered an ‘animal rights’ group, since they’re in favour of banning live export. See, for instance, their joint site with Animals Australia:

    If you don’t accept the RSPCA as an AR group, why is that, when exactly the same actions taken by one group are classified as ‘rights’, and by other groups, such as the RSPCA, as welfare? The RSPCA advocate the Five ‘Freedoms’, which if you take a broad interpretation of rights, could be considered ‘rights.’

    In fact, that’s exactly how the Wikipedia article on the Five Freedoms describes them:

    To be meaningful, any right has to be anchored in a right to life and freedom. This gives animal rights a parallel to human rights. If you can take someone’s life at any stage, what’s the point of having a ‘right’ to being in a cage of a certain size? And what kind of ‘right’ is it to be in that cage, anyway?

    As the Wikipedia article i linked to says, AL the book doesn’t necessarily have a problem with use or death. Neither do things like reducing consumption, vegetarianism, campaigns to ban live export or eliminate factory farming, all of which feature on the AL website.

    Saying a few words about veganism doesn’t make you a vegan group. It’s easy to offer veganism as just one option among others (as ‘Vegan’ Outreach and Animals Australia do. Although i don’t think AA claims to be a vegan group – Lyn White has certainly said they’re not). To be a vegan group you need to advocate veganism *to the exclusion* of practices that aren’t vegan. How can you be a vegan group when you accept practices that aren’t vegan?

    • Personally I cannot believe how out of date the Animal Liberation Qld web site is. Where do their donations go? Certainly not on their web site. This is stupid as everyone knows how important web sites are nowadays, they are a window to your business or organization. Change the committee change the organizations agenda and objectives ASAP.


What are your thoughts?