AfA comments and observations

[Guest guest]

Kim Bartlett wrote:

A note about the Fatwa: while it originated in Egypt, it is applicable to

Muslims throughout the world, and while it is specific to animal transport and

slaughter, Sheikh Tantawy made it clear that the Islamic requirement for

merciful treatment is applicable to all animals. Islam does not prohibit

meat-eating but neither is it required. The AfA resolutions call for humane

slaughter but do not in any way promote meat-eating.

 

Dear Kim,

This last sentence contains the key to understanding the position of myself

and other animal rights supporters. The AfA resolutions calling for humane

slaughter - if implemented - DO promote meat-eating! If people are enabled

to believe that slaughter is humane, they will have reduced motivation ever

to become vegetarian.

In some animal protection issues, incremental improvements can be seen as

helpful in the short term while not slowing long term progress. But very

often, these improvements allow for complacency and put off the day when the

suffering can end.

The Bali Zoo is a good example. Any efforts to improve this shocking zoo

will be used by its owners to make the zoo look more acceptable to visitors

and thus diminish any pressure to have it phased out.

John.

[Guest guest]

Humane Slaughter:

Why would anyone wish to be slaughtered for no fault of his?

 

But oh, here we are not pushing the humans towards death- instead

these are just dumb beasts who would be converted into FOOD for our

brethrens- the people.

 

Ever wondered why there is no mass support that calls out to the

terrorists to carry out HUMANE ATTACKS instead?

 

If you want to help an animal help it uphold its right to LIFE.

 

Azam

[Guest guest]

>But the conference was overwhelmingly geared towards animal welfare

>rather than animal rights. And this seems to be the dominant aspect

>of AfA, welfare not rights.

 

 

Beyond Kim's response, this criticism appears to accept the

rights/welfare dichotomy commonly perceived by those who accept the

definitions of " animal rights " propounded by thinkers in the western

philosophical tradition.

 

Among them, there are several different competing theories

of why animals should have rights, how they are conferred, and what

humans should do to advance or retard the cause.

 

Opponents of " animal rights " tend find appropriating the term

" animal welfare " to their side just as useful as advocates of " animal

rights " find rejecting " animal welfare " to be in advancing their own

definitions.

 

The common denominator appears to be that people drawing a

distinction between " animal rights " and " animal welfare " perceive

themselves as " fighting " for X in opposition to Y -- whether on

behalf of animals or on behalf of eating, wearing, and

experimenting on them.

 

From my perspective, the strongest part of Asian animal

advocacy is that it isn't " fighting " for anything, and is not based

on dualistic philosophical theories, which presume that there is

" us " and " them, " & they are all alike, all to be annihilated.

 

Instead, Asian animal advocacy draws depth, momentum, and

cultural resonance from religious traditions which hold that we are

all one, & could easily end up in our next incarnation as the

critter we mistreat in this one. One does not need to be religious

at all -- and I am not -- to see that this idea can exist as a basis

for ethical conduct even if one has no belief in an afterlife

whatever. And indeed it does: " Do unto others as you would be done

by. "

 

The Asian animal advocacy tradition doesn't set up a dualism

which in effect forces proponents of animals and users of animals

into opposing camps, to come out fighting in attempts to annihilate

each other which have very little chance of succeeding, now or ever.

 

Instead, Asian animal advocacy proceeds from the notion that

life & ideas are a continuum, and that with conscientious effort one

can proceed from wherever one's head is now to a better place.

 

There is a western tendency to dismiss this concept as a mere

pretext for navel-gazing, and indeed there are a lot of

mantra-chanting hypocrites who pretend to religiosity in the Asian

traditions while making little or no attempt to genuinely better

their karma through performing good deeds while avoiding doing harm.

 

However, the Asian approach opens doors for the success of

humane education -- at all levels -- in a manner that the western

dualistic approach does not.

 

The western approach, by splitting humanity into " us " and

" them, " limits the possibilities of change to either extermination

or conversion. The history of conversion in any cause indicates that

it does not happen very often.

 

First of all, most cultures kill or expel apostates, so

that they do not convert anyone else.

 

Second, most conversions of whole societies and

civilizations have come by the sword. The outcome of such

conversions is usually a change in external rituals, while the

underlying customs and cruelties remain the same.

 

Third, people who are willing to convert voluntarily from

one set of cultural beliefs to another tend to be the least

successful and influential members of society, e.g. the drunks down

at the rescue mission, who may manage to redeem themselves but are

seldom likely to influence very many others.

 

In the Asian tradition, it is possible for people to become

enlightened without becoming their own oppositions. Their lives may

change in various ways, but the quest for enlightenment and the

lifestyle changes that may go with it have a long history of cultural

acceptance and incorporation into lifestyles. A person may renounce

eating meat, for example, at least in theory, without splitting

one's family. Instead, this may be accepted as just a matter of the

person having reached another stage in life.

 

Note that I say " may be. " I see all of the same things

happening in some Asian families when people become vegetarian that

happen in western families -- just not as often, nor with as much

open acrimony, because the choice to become a vegetarian is not

perceived so much as a choice to leave " us " and become a " them " who

is an enemy.

 

Ironically, I perceive the Asian animal advocacy approach as

allowing for much more effective use of tactics of persuasion which

have developed largely within the initially western cultures of

advertising and partisan politics.

 

What is necessary to achieve either " animal welfare " or

" animal rights " is not jihad, or holy war, which will never bring

deep and effective conversions from the heart. Rather, it is

necessary to persuade the overwhelming majority of society to

internalize within themselves the same pro-animal outlook that animal

advocates have already internalize.

 

One cannot " fight " for this; one must show the way,

educating gently and with patience, demonstrating constantly through

personal example.

 

Over many years of reporting about animal advocacy,

developing an intense interest in the cause in Asia long before I was

ever able to visit in person, I have been fortunate to observe the

evolution of the cause in societies dominated by all of the major

religious traditions. There are several common elements, in that

the rise of animal advocacy tends to accompany a rise in affluence

and education, associated with a drift away from the average person

being involved directly in animal use industries. Animal advocacy

also rises as women become more economically and culturally

emancipated. In addition, animal advocacy tends to gain increasing

political favor as attention toward reducing domestic violence

increases.

 

However, it is clear that it is not necessary for animal

advocates to adopt any particular cultural frame of reference,

including the rights/welfare dichotomy, which does not really fit

well into a Hindu, Buddhist, or Confuscian outlook.

 

Drawing the distinction between " rights " and " welfare " at

times has some utility, for example in avoiding legislative traps

which might achieve short-term goals while inhibiting further

progress.

 

At other times, though, and probably much more often than

not, talk of " rights " vs. " welfare " is an abstraction and a

sidetrack. Animal advocacy is now evolving very rapidly in China,

for example, where " rights " -based movements historically make little

progress.

 

Of particular note is that the Beijing government has not

responded to animal advocacy as a " rights " -based cause. To the

extent that it is possible to read the actions and non-actions of the

Beijing government over the past few years, Beijing appears to

perceive animal advocates as advancing values that will work to the

longterm betterment of society, and appears to be standing back

wherever possible to let animal advocates work, stepping in

occasionally with directives and legislative measures when a societal

consensus appears to have developed in their favor.

 

One could say, " Everything Beijing has done so far is a

matter of welfare, not rights, " but there is no right more

fundamental to an animal than the right to not be captured, caged,

sold, and eaten, and several recent Beijing directives work to this

end on behalf of various species -- not only the endangered, but

also others commonly victimized by live markets.

 

I doubt that the Beijing government is likely to decree that

all animals have rights, now or ever, but I think it is very likely

that animals in China will within another 10 years or so be at least

as well-protected as in any western nation, without " rights " in the

western sense ever being part of the issue.

 

Elsewhere, notably India, it is possible (and perhaps even

likely) that some Asian societies will make more rapidly progress on

behalf of animals during the next 10 years than many western nations

which are nominally ahead of them now, but are culturally limited by

the combination of influential animal use industries with activist

tactics which promote a fight instead of moral growth.

 

All of this is a very long way to say that in my view, the

most valuable part of the Asia for Animals conference series is that

it has not become bogged down in endless debate over rights vs.

welfare, and instead has provided a meeting point for many other

perspectives on how to improve human treatment of animals.

 

A high point of the most recent Asia for Animals conference

for me was looking around a long table at breakfast to see Catholic,

Protestant, Hindu, Confucian, Buddhist, Islamic, and secular

backgrounds all represented among a group of about 10 people who

appeared to be in essential agreement about their basic beliefs about

animals, despite approaching from directions which might be seen as

fundamentally in conflict and incompatible if one viewed life and the

issues in a dualistic manner.

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

[Guest guest]

What EAST, WEST, NORTH, SOUTH, ASIA NON-ASIA are you talking about?

 

Ethical Animal Rights people have always been speaking in ONE VOICE

and that is HAVE MERCY!

Humane slaughter is no answer to that.

 

Either you help end human interest DEATHS of animals or stay away from

being an ANIMAL PEOPLE and do better things instead.

 

Go check http://www.stopelephantpolo.com and see what I mean by a

UNITED ANIMAL RIGHTS VOICE.