You Versus a Cow

Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and ‘animals’ is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.

- Carl Sagan

I’m looking forward to a new little movie that will be launching soon. It is called Speciesism: The Movie and it is intended to make us consider our relationship with animals and the privileged stance we unquestionably assume among the animal kingdom…especially in relation to food.  Here is the trailer:

I find speciesism to be a very fascinating and challenging philosophy. Why do we value humans above animals? What makes us superior, if anything? How far should “animal rights” go? What is a “sentient being?” These kinds of questions are complex and deserve an open mind. You can look at speciesism from all kinds of angles. And people have. My understanding is that the best author to read who argues for NONspecieism is Joan Dunayer.

The movie should be good food for thought! Vegan food of course.

Authenticity Above All Else

I just changed the name of my section to People and Animals instead of Animal Rights. The reason? Questions…lots of questions and lots of complexity. There was a time in my life when questions and complexity made me so nervous. Does God exist or doesn’t He? Should  I give this relationship another try or not? Would it be better to take this AP class or to do a thesis ??? I have to laugh at myself for that last one. Seriously though, every question had the potential to make me lose sleep, weight and sanity. And then, little by little, therapy session by therapy session, prayer by prayer, win and after win and loss after loss I came to realize that complexities make up some of the most beautiful parts of this life.  Those questions that are really worth asking often have no “right” answer. And, in a fascinating plot twist, when you attach yourself stringently to an answer, you often end up “kicking against the goads” so to speak as you fight feverishly to convince yourself and everyone around you that it is THE answer. I have found the joy in embracing the unknown and the mantra that “there is no right answer” to guide myself through the murky times.

I’ve found the same grey areas exist in the world of animal rights just as they do in relationships, finances, spirituality and, er, course registration. Just 6 months ago I was enlightened by a fellow vegan and activist that there is an important difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I had been using them interchangeably. Ah. So much to learn. And that’s just vocabulary. There are other questions that I could lose sleep over. Bigger questions. Do I really think that NO ONE should eat meat? If I have children will I feed them animal products? Is all laboratory animal testing condemnable? Do animals have to die in a grass farming model?

I know vegans who would scoff at these questions, or choke on their tempeh burger in horror at my even asking them in the first place. “Of course no one should eat meat! Ever!” And more power to them…. IF they have really deliberated all sides and made a well-informed decision. (Although, really I would argue that the words ever, never, always, and forever should just be banned from all debate rhetoric.) Yes, we don’t want to imagine animals suffering for ANYTHING. But isn’t the intersection between human and animal more intricate than that? Doesn’t it deserve intellectual devotion and flexibility? I believe there is always an exception to the rule. This all reminds me of a disconcerting conversation I had with a Christian pastor dear to me. Before I left the midwest for the west coast, I met with him and shared that I had taken a step back from organized Christianity. That I was trying to reconcile the ongoing discomfort I felt in services with my deep spiritual faith. He advised me to hold fast to the Christian faith because those who walk away from the church get into some “really weird things.” Be that as it may, isn’t there virtue in checking out those weird things in a temperate and humble way? Do we fully know what we believe in if we don’t consider the alternatives?

I can’t honestly say that I will agree with every animal rights position, certainly not with every animal welfare position. I am not trying to represent a movement or align myself with an organizaiton. This is why I changed my category name. As I wade deeper into these grey areas and sacrifice my natural desire to maintain some kind of comforting absolutism on the topic of animal rights, I am finding that it is the intersection between human and animal that is at the center of my sorrows. It is the philosophies and ethics that are represented by our actions and inactions toward our fellow species that I want to understand and challenge. I will embrace the hard questions knowing that I may never get a satisfying answer to any of them. I’ll just try to be authentic.

And, incidentally, this authenticity not only makes me happier, but it makes people around me happier too. You might enjoy trying this out with me. What absolutisms can you let go of? Which hard questions are squelching  your authenticity? Here’s to you! In whatever wonderful road of grey area you find yourself!

The Secret Life of Juan

From NPR. Shakespeare himself could have written this as a tragedy were he alive today. The King’s country is falling into financial ruins. He tells the people to be frugal. He tells leaders to reflect on their own behavior and to be models for the citizens. He stands as the honorary president of the World Wildlife Fund in his monarchy. And then what does he do?? He goes on a $60,000 elephant hunting trip in Botswana. (picture is from previous trip in 2006.) 

But, lo and behold, he breaks his hip during the trip and must explain his injury to the nation he thought he could fool. Animal rights, WWF, and the unemployed, underserved Spanish people are up in arms.  This guy dug himself a whole so deep you could bury a trophy hunted elephant in it.

(And as an interesting secondary plot, his 13-year-old grandson is currently being investigated in an incident during which he “shot himself in the foot.” Ah, the irony.) 

Here is the full story…

 

OPEN SEASON ON SPAIN’S KING AFTER LUXE HUNTING TRIP

by LAUREN FRAYER

For a man used to pomp and paparazzi, King Juan Carlos of Spain looked shaken, emerging from a hospital in Madrid Wednesday after hip surgery.

“I’m very sorry,” he said, blinking into the cameras, sheepish, and leaning on his crutches. “I made a mistake, and it won’t happen again.”

As Spaniards grapple with severe austerity measures and 24 percent unemployment, their king is dealing with a different kind of pain — extreme embarrassment over public outrage upon his return from an elephant hunt in Africa that cost nearly $60,000, or more than twice the average salary in Spain.

And the Spanish public only found out about the trip because he broke his hip — hence the recent surgery — and had to be airlifted home.

The Royal Palace confirmed that this is the first time a Spanish king has ever said he’s sorry — at least publicly — for anything.

But it’s not enough for Rafa Lucia, a social worker smoking in the rain outside a Madrid library. He’s been jobless for months. The government cut his local school’s budget by 30 percent.

And the Royal Palace’s budget?

“They cut just 2 percent. And now this. It’s like, OK, so the government doesn’t cut [their budget], and now he’s spending the money in Africa killing elephants,” Lucia says.

Adding Insult To Injury

Spaniards can’t decide which would be worse — whether their king might have spent public money on his jaunt to Botswana last week, or whether it was paid for by an Arab businessman courting favor, as some reports say. Either way, there are calls for the king’s abdication.

Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if the king hadn’t recently given a speech calling on Spanish leaders to think about their own behavior and set an example of modesty amid recession. He also said he loses sleep worrying that the unemployment rate among young Spaniards is 50 percent.

EnlargeLauren Frayer for NPRMembers of the animal-rights group Igualdad Animal protest outside the Madrid hospital where Spanish King Juan Carlos was recovering after hip surgery this week. The king, who went elephant hunting in Africa, is the honorary president of the World Wildlife Fund in Spain.

Sharon Nuñez, an animal-rights activist, organized a protest outside the king’s hospital this week. Volunteers lined the street with photos of maimed elephants and water buffalo.

“That’s the funny, ironic thing about it — we have someone who’s going out killing elephants, killing animals, and he’s representing an international environmental organization,” Nuñez says.

She’s referring to the fact that the king is the honorary president of the World Wildlife Fund in Spain.

This proved particularly awkward when a snapshot of Juan Carlos began circulating online this week. It shows him posing in front of an elephant he shot dead in Botswana in 2006.

WWF’s conservation director for Spain, Enrique Segovia, says he has requested an audience with the king to discuss whether he’ll keep that position.

“We’ve had many, many complaints from members,” Segovia says. “The image of the king hunting elephants, it’s incongruent with an organization like ours that defends elephants.”

Rough Year For Royals

Spain’s monarchy is mostly symbolic, but well-respected. Juan Carlos was hand-picked by Gen. Francisco Franco to lead Spain before the dictator died in 1975, and the king is credited with easing the country’s transition to democracy.

But college student Roy Alexander Bouzas says times have changed.

“It’s true that old people here in Spain appreciate the work that the king did in the transition,” he says. “But I think we’re now in another time — the transition is the past — and the king has to [make] efforts like the rest of the citizens.”

It’s been a tough year for Spain’s royals. The king’s son-in-law is the subject of a corruption probe. And last week, police began investigating an incident involving the king’s 13-year-old grandson, who recently shot himself in the foot.

Which Little Piggy Goes to Market?

UPDATE: In January the Supreme Court overturned California’s law for the humane treatment of downed hogs (and other animals) being slaughtered for human consumption. Meanwhile, Gary Ackerman (D-NY) has again proposed a bill to Congress that would put in place stricter federal legislation regarding downed animals. His proposal would permanently forbid downed animals from entering our food supply and allow them humane euthanization.

 

The other night, I planned on attending a lecture at the UCLA campus on the topic of Farmed Animals and the Law. The speaker was Compassion Over Killing’s General Counsel Cheryl Leahy. The topic interested me in light of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling regarding California’s slaughter methods for farmed animals. This case is being closely watched by animal rights groups and California citizens concerned about what goes on in their state. The story of the case goes like this…

In 2008 California passed legislation called the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). One important change that the HMSA brought to California food production was that downed pigs (and other livestock) could not be assigned into the slaughter line. A “downed” pig (or goat, or sheep, or cow) is one that is so sick or injured that it is non-ambulatory. According to federal standards, although these animals can’t walk they can still be included in our food systems. Of course a non-ambulatory animal must be dragged, forklifted or torturously “prompted” in order to get them to the final line.  The US government has said NO to putting downed cattle into our food. California residents decided that wasn’t enough. They have said NO to downed pigs, sheep, and other livestock as well.  They decided that no downer animals can be added to the food system and must be euthanized on the spot. This puts pressure (rightfully so!) on transport procedures, daily care, and veterinary care standards.

Now the pork industry is arguing that California cannot require slaughterhouses to adopt euthanasia procedures since there is no federal law mandating it. The case, National Meat Association vs. Harris, has gone to the Supreme Court. Arguments have been made and it is expected that a decision will be delivered in the next few months.  This case raises questions not only of animal welfare, but also of states’ rights.  In fact, this is the first time in my adult life when I feel like I grasp what is meant by states’ rights. As a resident of California, it pisses me off that the federal government might come in and crush the efforts that this state has made toward more humane food production. Perhaps I wouldn’t be if I didn’t unwaveringly believe that the pork industry lobbyists are playing puppeteer in this scenario in order to protect their bottom line no matter the suffering that upholds it.

Ultimately, I don’t want anyone to eat a pig. But millions—oh, let me be specific…one hundred thirteen million—pigs are killed each year in the United States by the huge pork industries (of which there are just 4 main players, go figure) in horrific conditions after living their short lives in crammed enclosures and terrifying transport trailers. Every small step, every bit of compassion that these exploited animals can receive is worth hoping for and fighting for.

I was eager to hear what Cheryl Leahy expected the outcome of this case to be. Alas, Los Angeles traffic got the better of me. As I sat on Wilshire, just a mile away from campus yet going nowhere, I came to my own prediction that California has a slim chance of winning this case. I’m not trying to sound pessimistic, but realistic. Lobbyists for the meat and dairy industries are so powerful that it makes for a David and Goliath battle every time someone goes up against them.  In the Occupy Wall Street declaration and manifesto, one grievance against corporations is that they, “have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.” Bingo. But there’s a second “Bingo.” And that is in OWS’s concluding remarks where they incite citizens to “create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.”

This brings me to the question that many of posts will most likely end with: What can I do? First of all, I will certainly post an update on the case as soon as I hear of it. Second, I will continue to NOT eat meat as long as the status quo system of factory farming and CAFO’s is as grotesque and amoral as I believe them it to be. Third, I will continue to encourage others to do the same. And who knows…it might just be time to write another petition!

Stay tuned…

Irvine, CA passes progressive humane law

 

 

“Irvine, California’s City Council passed an unprecedented bill this week banning rodeos and circuses with exotic animals, and the retail sale of dogs and cats. This huge victory for animals passed with a 4–1 vote after nearly 40 supporters, including IDA’s Elephant Campaign Director Catherine Doyle, spoke in favor of the ban.

 

Most dogs sold in pet stores come from puppy mills where dogs are kept in filthy, cramped, inhumane conditions. Animals in circuses suffer terribly from cruel training, painful physical problems from living in semi-trailers and on chains, and sheer boredom. Animals in rodeos are not aggressive naturally – they are domesticated animals who are painfully coerced and injured for the sake of entertainment. IDA applauds the city of Irvine for their compassionate decision. Congratulations to the Irvine activists whose perseverance and hard work made this amazing victory possible. California just got a little safer for animals.”    

                           

   - In Defense of Animals (IDA)