Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

Dear Colleagues:

The response to our pamphlet has been overwhelming and coming from advocates all over the world. Anna Charlton and I are very happy that so many people are finding the pamphlet of use in their educational efforts.

We are working as quickly as possible to make foreign language versions. Through the efforts of Karin Hilpisch and Barna Mink, we now have a German version available.

You can download the German version by clicking here.

The German version is provided in a format that will fit A4 paper size.

We also now have an English version that is available for A4 paper. You can download it by clicking here.

Please also remember that our video presentations, Theory of Animal Rights, Animals as Property, Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare, and Animal Law, are all available in German (as well as in French, Spanish, and Portuguese).

Karin Hilpisch, who translated the videos, has also translated a number of blog essays into German.

We are working diligently to make the abolitionist approach to animal rights accessible to advocates around the world and, again, we are very happy that so many of you are finding that the pamphlet facilitates your effort to engage in creative, nonviolent vegan education.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

During the past year, I have received more than a hundred requests to produce a pamphlet that presents the abolitionist approach in an accessible way. So, with production help from Barna Mink and Randy W. Sandberg, Anna Charlton and I created a Tri-Fold pamphlet that we offer to you to facilitate your efforts to educate your family, friends, and community about veganism in a nonviolent and creative way.

Here is what the pamphlet looks like:

You can download the pamphlet by clicking here.

The pamphlet is presently available only in English. We will be providing French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese versions in the near future and we would like to provide it in even more languages later on.

We hope that you find this pamphlet to be useful.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

This morning, I received a copy of a press release concerning the arrest and detention of Martin Balluch and other animal advocates in Austria. These advocates are apparently being held without any formal charges being filed against them. I have also read the Amnesty International statement that is translated on the website of Balluch’s organization. Amnesty International expresses concern about the lack of specificity of the search warrants, the manner in which the warrants were executed, the fact that the accused are not being fully informed of the evidence against them or being given access to their counsel, and the use of statutes intended to address organized crime, which risks criminalizing or chilling the legitimate and peaceful expression of protected speech and threatens freedom of association.

According to Amnesty International, the Austrian authorities are claiming that the accused acted through their organizations to conspire to commit or to cause to be committed acts of “criminal damage to property, duress, menacing threat.”

I have absolutely no idea whether there is any evidence to support these charges. And I have been very clear for many years now that I oppose all violence and regard the principle of Ahimsa as the foundation for the abolitionist movement. But it does not matter what Balluch and the others are accused of. They, like everyone accused of criminal wrongdoing, are entitled to know with specificity the charges against them and to know what evidence exists to support those charges; they are entitled to assistance of counsel; they are entitled not to have the execution of a search warrant be an occasion for harassment; and they are entitled not to have their legitimate and legal activities disrupted by the overreaching use of organized crime statutes.

I find it very difficult to believe Balluch’s claim that the Austrian government is persecuting him and the others because of their role in campaigning for Austrian animal welfare laws. These laws are hardly a cause for alarm by anyone. As I discussed in an earlier essay, the Austrian laws, like welfare laws generally, further entrench animal exploitation and do nothing to eradicate the property status of animals.

But that is beside the point. If the Austrian authorities have evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they should file formal charges and initiate a public and transparent prosecution. If they do not have evidence, then they should release those being held.

I have been a lawyer for almost 30 years and I have represented many individuals, including many animal advocates, who have been harassed by the authorities. I have also taught Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure for many years. I fully understand how the weight of the criminal process can be wielded by governments. It is very disturbing to see liberal democracies that supposedly celebrate “the rule of law” routinely ignore it. This is an example. Unfortunately, it is one of many.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Anthropologist Margaret Mead once said “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has invoked Mead’s quotation to pat itself and its supporters on their welfarist backs for the agreement by the Canadian division of Kentucky Fried Chicken to “purchase 100 percent of its chickens—through a phase-in program—from suppliers that use ‘controlled-atmosphere killing’ (CAK), the least cruel method of bird slaughter available. CAK works by replacing birds’ oxygen with a mixture of nonpoisonous inert gasses to gently put them ‘to sleep.’”

In addition, KFC Canada has agreed to add what PETA characterizes as a “totally cruelty-free option” to its menu in 65% of its Canadian stores: a faux chicken sandwich that will come in a wrap with non-vegan mayonnaise. Moreover, KFC Canada has agreed to “[i]mprove its animal welfare audit criteria to reduce the number of broken bones and other injuries suffered by birds,” urge (but not require) its suppliers to make other welfare improvements, and to form an animal welfare advisory council. And PETA will be empowered: KFC will allow “PETA to review its animal welfare audit forms every six months.”

PETA, “thrilled to announce” what it characterizes as an “historic new animal welfare plan,” “enormous victory,” and “historic victory!” has officially ended its boycott of KFC Canada. But PETA warns that “the cruelty in other nations continues.”

Poor Margaret Mead must not merely be rolling over in her grave; she must be spinning at high speed.

Read the rest of this entry »

A friend of mine recently asked the following question: “What do you say to people who are vegans and who educate others about veganism but who are also concerned about circuses, hunting, and other particular forms of animal exploitation. Do you advise that they not address those issues at all and just focus on veganism?”

Of course not.

Read the rest of this entry »

Martin Balluch, an Austrian animal advocate and president of the Association Against Animal Factories in Austria, is circulating an essay that he wrote and that he characterized to me as opening a “very new approach” to the rights/welfare debate.

Balluch’s essay is long and, at places, convoluted, but the basic thesis is really quite simple.

According to Balluch, taking the abolitionist approach and promoting vegan/abolitionist education rather than welfarist regulatory reform “cannot but fail” because, in a speciesist society, “to live vegan costs an enormous amount of energy, so that only a tiny minority will ever have enough motivation and resolve to be able to sustain it.”

So what is the “very new approach” that Balluch proposes?

He argues that we should support welfarist reform. Balluch argues that “it is at least possible” that welfarist regulation will eventually lead to abolition on both an individual and social level. That is, supporting animal welfare reform will, as a psychological matter, lead the individual toward veganism and will, as a political matter, cause the society to move toward abolition.

In short, Balluch is not proposing a “very new approach” at all.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the things that I hear frequently is that educating people, particularly strangers, about veganism, is difficult.

On the contrary, our everyday interactions with people provide us with many opportunities to discuss veganism. This essay will discuss a couple of examples. I will discuss more examples in future essays.

Read the rest of this entry »

On January 8, 2008, the European Commission rejected calls that it postpone its Directive calling for a “ban” on the conventional battery-cage, which is scheduled to go into effect in 2012 (after being first announced in 1999). According to the Directive, producers will have the choice to go “free-range,” “barn” (known as “cage-free” in the U.S.) or to use “enriched” cages where stocking densities are lower and that must have a nest, litter, perch and clawing board.

And the welfarists are, as you would predict, just as excited as they could be, although some at least had the good grace to reveal a small hint of the skepticism that is warranted.

Read the rest of this entry »

Among the many notices that I receive about various events and conferences focused on animal issues was an announcement about a conference sponsored by the welfarist group, United Poultry Concerns. The title of the conference is: “Cage Free, Animal Friendly, Go Vegan -What’s the Problem?”

According to the announcement, the conference will ask:

Should activists work to reduce the suffering of billions of chickens and other animals who will never live to see a vegan world, or is such work counterproductive—a moral betrayal of animals?

This question assumes that animal welfare reforms significantly reduce the suffering of animals and will lead us along incrementally to a vegan world. There is no support for such an assumption.

Read the rest of this entry »

It is a new year. It is a time to resolve to do better.

A simple suggestion: If you are not a vegan yet, get off the fence and stop exploiting nonhumans.

If you are vegan, then educate yourself about the relevant moral arguments, as well as the environmental and health benefits, and try to work veganism into every conversation that you can. Look at every omnivore (including vegetarians who are not vegans) who you meet as someone who can be convinced if you work hard enough at it. Many will not listen; some will. And every person who becomes a vegan makes a difference.

Veganism is the most important personal change you can make; educating others about veganism is the most significant form of activism in which you can engage.

Happy New Year.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Recently, there was a debate on the excellent and always lively Vegan Freak Forums between what may generally characterized as “postmodern feminists” and “radical feminists.” Postmodern feminists acknowledge that a woman’s choice to commodify herself sexually may represent an act of empowerment and cannot be assessed in any definitively negative way. These feminists are often pro-pornography, or are at least not anti-pornography. Radical feminists are more inclined to reject the commodification of women as inherently problematic. They are generally anti-pornography and are particularly opposed to pornography in which women are depicted as recipients of violent or abusive treatment. They regard most gender stereotypes as harmful to both women and men and seek to undermine these stereotypes. Postmodern feminists often argue that “feminine” stereotypes can help to empower women.

This debate has some interesting and important parallels with the debate on abolition vs. welfare. Indeed, postmodern feminism and animal welfare are the same theory applied in different contexts.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Media Release (October 25, 2007) from Animal Rights International (ARI) President Peter Singer announced that ARI has placed billboard-style ads on New York buses for a month. These ads apparently show how battery eggs are produced. In the Release, Singer explains how terrible battery cages are. Singer states: “‘Battery cages are being phased out in Europe—why are we lagging behind?’” Singer claims that “there is a bright spot in this dark picture”:

Cage-free eggs, while presently only about five percent of sales, are the fastest growing segment of the market. As more people become aware of the enormous suffering inflicted on caged layers, they often choose to spend a few extra pennies for a more humanely produced egg. ARI hopes that by reminding New Yorkers that breakfast comes at a price for hens, many will spend a little more to get them out of the cages.

The ARI/Singer Release is problematic in at least three respects.

Read the rest of this entry »

A central theme of my work for the past decade or so has been the exploration of our cognitive confusion—our “moral schizophrenia”—when it comes to nonhuman animals. Recently, I commented on how entertainer Ellen Degeneres sobbed on her television show about a dog that she adopted and gave away while, at the same time, promoted her dead-animal luncheon menu on her website. Football player Michael Vick was excoriated for his involvement with dog fighting by a public that thinks nothing about eating nonhumans tortured every bit as much as one of Vick’s dogs.

Read the rest of this entry »

We humans claim to have some sort of “special” characteristic that justifies our exploitation of nonhumans. One such supposed characteristic is that we are supposedly rational and they supposedly are not. When we consider that it is humans who build nuclear weapons and who destroy the very environment necessary to sustain life, including our lives—just to identify two irrational human behaviors—the rationality claim rings rather hollow. But every now and then, particular examples of what a strange species we are really hits me. I want to share a recent experience with you.

Read the rest of this entry »

On October 16, popular U.S. entertainer Ellen DeGeneres told her talk-show audience–and the world–that she adopted a dog, Iggy, in September. She claimed that Iggy did not get along with her cats, so she gave him to her hairdresser, who has two daughters who wanted him. This apparently violated the adoption contract used by the rescue group, Mutts and Moms, from which Ms. DeGeneres adopted Iggy, because the contract apparently required that she return him to them if she no longer wanted him. The rescue group took Iggy from the hairdresser’s home. Ms. DeGeneres broke down and sobbed as she made a plea that Mutts and Moms return the dog to her hairdresser’s children.

Read the rest of this entry »