The cruelty of slaughterhouses and the rights welfare conflict

[Guest guest]

Can you imagine a time when, in order to address the pressing issue of human

rights abuse in backward countries, the likes of Amnesty International agree

a compromise whereby torture techniques are refined, regulated and given

their stamp of approval? Perhaps there could be an AI logo added to batons

and pliers and handcuffs. I don't know, say an international agreement is

reached to allow certain governments, the US and China spring to mind, to

inflict physical and psychological suffering on political prisoners, not

electric shocks and genital mutilation but solitary confinement and maybe

the use of white noise or flashing lights once a week for no more than a few

hours. The pulling of no more than two finger nails, the choice of finger

agreed with the victim. Perhaps food deprivation or chaining them to the bed

briefly would be acceptable if it was in accordance with an internationally

agreed time limit? How about an agreement between Save The Children and the

kiddie porn industry to licence the material that uses unwanted children to

entertain adults with these desires? Surely it would be a step in the right

direction? It wouldn't of course be great for the children involved or for

the people imprisoned for their political beliefs to be used against their

will, but it might be better than it is without regulation. And the

consciences of the dominant forces would be clear, the abuse regulated and

more of us could join in to make these industries of abuse bigger and

better, something we can all enjoy with a clear conscience.

 

In reality these ludicrous ideas are not something I would countenance for

one minute and I will beg anyone else that cares enough to speak out against

the use of exploitation and violence whoever the perpetrator is and however

it's dressed up to sound less awful. Currently we are in the middle of an

intensified campaign by animal industries to sweeten up the abuse of animals

and it's to be expected that the cute face of animal abuse, the likes of

CIWF and the RSPCA are part of this, but there are others falling into this

trap. TV chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fernley-Whittinstall are also part of

this process of softening up calls for animal rights with their pleas for

different exploitation practices. The political party Animals Count are

doing it too as they call for a reduction in the distance that infant

animals are driven to the slaughterhouse to a maximum of 200 miles and to

" improve animal welfare by raising farming standards " . Ask the RSPCA for a

look round their 'welfare friendly' farms and they'll direct you to their

website and to a cartoon of some chickens playing football! You have to see

this stray from reality to believe it!:

www.supportchickennow.co.uk/freedomfood/index.html

 

Alternatively take a step into reality and see what they don't want you to

see:

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

 

Aside from the semantics of getting these hapless creatures to a profitable

killing weight, slaughterhouses are amongst the most awful places on Earth

and should not exist, period. The time has come to stop pretending there is

a nice way to exploit animals and prematurely extinguish their short lives.

It seems to me even more unreasonable to treat an animal well, thus gaining

its confidence and trust, and then send it to an awful death in a truck full

of family and friends.

 

It is at best naïve to think that we are doing these animals a favour by

ending their short lives closer to the farm they grew up in than was the

case for their parents. Naïve, cruel or stupid, giving such tacit agreement

to this process means the short life is extinguished, the journey there is

awful, the death throws violent, the significant environmental damage, waste

of vegetable protein, excess consumption of water and so on and so forth

remains the same. However, the conscience of the exploiter is somehow clear!

This is the last thing in the world that any compassionate soul should be

engaged in encouraging. Decent people do not do deals with the devil, not

now not ever.

 

Our demands are being watered down deliberately by calls for refinements in

animal abuse and as a result the numbers of animals going through the

process of exploitation will only increase. According to one newspaper

report, nine days after the launch of the " Good Veal " campaign, (RSPCA,

CIWF) veal sales at one English supermarket chain rose 45 percent! Who

benefits from this? The animals that are no longer here or those yet to be

born? Neither. Free range eggs sound lovely once you overcome the

realisation that it is the glutinous period of a hen you are eating, and

that it comes from birds who have no freedom to choose and whose lives are

snuffed out violently as infants. Once we have persuaded the consumer to buy

only free range and organic animal body parts, then what? How do we then

request a boycott of these products of cruelty that we have encouraged

everyone to buy? Advocates of 'freedom' and 'compassion' in animal farming

are advocates of violence and engaged in a conspiracy to commit atrocities.

Ignoring for a moment the campaign to promote the killing of free-range

chickens lets not forget that for the most part rabbits, cows, sheep and

horses are also 'free range' and their short lives end as awfully as any

that are destined to be eaten. Free range is not the way ahead.

 

It is our duty to lead the way and teach others what we have learnt, not to

find ways for them to carry on the abuses with a clear conscience. We are

not here to promote cruelty, obviously! Those who do are the enemy of the

animals. In a 2002 article on their Center for Media and Democracy website,

authors and social activists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton described the

activities of a PR firm involved in the dismantling of movements concerned

about environmental human and animal rights problems.

 

" Their favourite method, " wrote Stauber and Rampton, " is a 'divide and

conquer' strategy heavily dependent on co-optation: First identify the

'radicals' who are unwilling to compromise (vegans in this case - ed) and

who are demanding fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand. Then,

identify the 'realists' - typically, organizations with significant budgets

and staffs (see CIWF, RSPCA - added) working in the same relative area of

public concern as the radicals. Then, approach these realists, often through

a friendly third party, start a dialogue and eventually cut a deal, a

'win-win' solution that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their

demands.

 

" Next, go with the realists to the 'idealists' who have learned about the

problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists that a

'win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a

whole. Once this has been accomplished, the 'radicals' can be shut out as

extremists, the PR fix is in, and the deal can be touted in the media to

make the corporation and its 'moderate' non-profit partners look heroic for

solving the problem. Result: *industry may have to make some small or

temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by the 'radicals'

are swept aside. " * [Emphasis added.]

 

There is one simple answer to so many welfare, environmental and health

problems and that's the vegan option. Excuses, half measures and compromises

are letting the animals down and doing nothing to stop the rot caused by

human activity.

 

Keith Mann

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well now THIS is interesting and somewhat refreshing, and considering that

the Vlasak thread was just shut down, and believe me this topic is

related...to tactics and approaches to ending the suffering of animals, or

to put the problem bluntly, the extermination of most other species by one

wielding more powerful technologies and destructive resources. I really

don¹t know see what Keith Mann is going on about re: Amnesty International

in the first part of his piece, but in the latter part he makes a good

point. Divide and conquer tactics have been used successfully in all the

activist campaigns that I have been involved with over the past 4 decades or

so...from Vietnam-Nicaragua-The Gulf Wars to tree-hugging-with-chains to

animal rights. Only animal rights folks don¹t really like to talk politics

or even strategy as much as they do things: like save puppies from street

corners and cows from floods. But there is a place for talk. And politics.

And strategy discussions. I am just not sure what good it does...

 

For example, our own website (www.animalnepal.org) has a section on Cruelty

Free Living and Cruelty Free Businesses and whatnot (some of which was

appreciatively replicated from the ACRES site). There are folks here

campaigning for humane slaughter and transport. It¹s all there, but the

thought that perhaps this is a divide-and-conquer activity, and as Mann

points out, ³doing nothing to stop the rot caused by human activity.² Every

time I ride the highways here I see buffalos stacked vertically. Would they

be better off stacked horizontally? For a few days I suppose until the

unavoidable axe falls.

 

But the idealism of Mann is phenomenal. Would the world flip a switch and

become vegan overnight? If so, what could possibly cause this cataclysm? One

possibility would be an uprising of armed vegans who would blow-up slaughter

houses and begin executing anyone mistreating animals. Of course, that

would also necessitate the violent overthrow of most of the world¹s armies

and currently-ruling governments. Gee, this is starting to sound like the

old days, when Communism on Campus was fashionable, no?

 

So, what are we left to work with from Mann¹s treatise on animal rights?

Protests against free-range egg farmers? Attack Amnesty International over

the number of figure nails pulled or not? Or just settle with a ³free

conscious² and call it a day? I still don¹t see an answer in this article,

just belly aching - I don¹t see an answer in the Vlasak rants either...just

lots more trouble...the only answer that I have ever seen regarding these

issues is the one-by-one saving of lives by folks like u guys all over the

globe. A small portion of the world¹s species are being saved, almost one

animal (or plant) at a time, or at best, one species at a time. Looks like a

long hard slog to me, amidst a multitudes of other long hard slogs, like

saving the environment or even outer space from the rot humanity bestows on

all it touches. As they say here, Ke Garne. I sure wish some more options

would magically appear and make all the animal problems go away. Apes with

RPGs and sidearms? Vivisectionist executions? Green Vegan movements that

sweep the globe overnight? Not going to happen in my lifetime me thinks.

Jigs in Nepal

 

On 1/6/09 4:02 PM, " "

wrote:

 

>

>

>

> Can you imagine a time when, in order to address the pressing issue of human

> rights abuse in backward countries, the likes of Amnesty International agree

> a compromise whereby torture techniques are refined, regulated and given

> their stamp of approval? Perhaps there could be an AI logo added to batons

> and pliers and handcuffs. I don't know, say an international agreement is

> reached to allow certain governments, the US and China spring to mind, to

> inflict physical and psychological suffering on political prisoners, not

> electric shocks and genital mutilation but solitary confinement and maybe

> the use of white noise or flashing lights once a week for no more than a few

> hours. The pulling of no more than two finger nails, the choice of finger

> agreed with the victim. Perhaps food deprivation or chaining them to the bed

> briefly would be acceptable if it was in accordance with an internationally

> agreed time limit? How about an agreement between Save The Children and the

> kiddie porn industry to licence the material that uses unwanted children to

> entertain adults with these desires? Surely it would be a step in the right

> direction? It wouldn't of course be great for the children involved or for

> the people imprisoned for their political beliefs to be used against their

> will, but it might be better than it is without regulation. And the

> consciences of the dominant forces would be clear, the abuse regulated and

> more of us could join in to make these industries of abuse bigger and

> better, something we can all enjoy with a clear conscience.

>

> In reality these ludicrous ideas are not something I would countenance for

> one minute and I will beg anyone else that cares enough to speak out against

> the use of exploitation and violence whoever the perpetrator is and however

> it's dressed up to sound less awful. Currently we are in the middle of an

> intensified campaign by animal industries to sweeten up the abuse of animals

> and it's to be expected that the cute face of animal abuse, the likes of

> CIWF and the RSPCA are part of this, but there are others falling into this

> trap. TV chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fernley-Whittinstall are also part of

> this process of softening up calls for animal rights with their pleas for

> different exploitation practices. The political party Animals Count are

> doing it too as they call for a reduction in the distance that infant

> animals are driven to the slaughterhouse to a maximum of 200 miles and to

> " improve animal welfare by raising farming standards " . Ask the RSPCA for a

> look round their 'welfare friendly' farms and they'll direct you to their

> website and to a cartoon of some chickens playing football! You have to see

> this stray from reality to believe it!:

> www.supportchickennow.co.uk/freedomfood/index.html

>

> Alternatively take a step into reality and see what they don't want you to

> see:

> uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

>

> Aside from the semantics of getting these hapless creatures to a profitable

> killing weight, slaughterhouses are amongst the most awful places on Earth

> and should not exist, period. The time has come to stop pretending there is

> a nice way to exploit animals and prematurely extinguish their short lives.

> It seems to me even more unreasonable to treat an animal well, thus gaining

> its confidence and trust, and then send it to an awful death in a truck full

> of family and friends.

>

> It is at best naïve to think that we are doing these animals a favour by

> ending their short lives closer to the farm they grew up in than was the

> case for their parents. Naïve, cruel or stupid, giving such tacit agreement

> to this process means the short life is extinguished, the journey there is

> awful, the death throws violent, the significant environmental damage, waste

> of vegetable protein, excess consumption of water and so on and so forth

> remains the same. However, the conscience of the exploiter is somehow clear!

> This is the last thing in the world that any compassionate soul should be

> engaged in encouraging. Decent people do not do deals with the devil, not

> now not ever.

>

> Our demands are being watered down deliberately by calls for refinements in

> animal abuse and as a result the numbers of animals going through the

> process of exploitation will only increase. According to one newspaper

> report, nine days after the launch of the " Good Veal " campaign, (RSPCA,

> CIWF) veal sales at one English supermarket chain rose 45 percent! Who

> benefits from this? The animals that are no longer here or those yet to be

> born? Neither. Free range eggs sound lovely once you overcome the

> realisation that it is the glutinous period of a hen you are eating, and

> that it comes from birds who have no freedom to choose and whose lives are

> snuffed out violently as infants. Once we have persuaded the consumer to buy

> only free range and organic animal body parts, then what? How do we then

> request a boycott of these products of cruelty that we have encouraged

> everyone to buy? Advocates of 'freedom' and 'compassion' in animal farming

> are advocates of violence and engaged in a conspiracy to commit atrocities.

> Ignoring for a moment the campaign to promote the killing of free-range

> chickens lets not forget that for the most part rabbits, cows, sheep and

> horses are also 'free range' and their short lives end as awfully as any

> that are destined to be eaten. Free range is not the way ahead.

>

> It is our duty to lead the way and teach others what we have learnt, not to

> find ways for them to carry on the abuses with a clear conscience. We are

> not here to promote cruelty, obviously! Those who do are the enemy of the

> animals. In a 2002 article on their Center for Media and Democracy website,

> authors and social activists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton described the

> activities of a PR firm involved in the dismantling of movements concerned

> about environmental human and animal rights problems.

>

> " Their favourite method, " wrote Stauber and Rampton, " is a 'divide and

> conquer' strategy heavily dependent on co-optation: First identify the

> 'radicals' who are unwilling to compromise (vegans in this case - ed) and

> who are demanding fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand. Then,

> identify the 'realists' - typically, organizations with significant budgets

> and staffs (see CIWF, RSPCA - added) working in the same relative area of

> public concern as the radicals. Then, approach these realists, often through

> a friendly third party, start a dialogue and eventually cut a deal, a

> 'win-win' solution that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their

> demands.

>

> " Next, go with the realists to the 'idealists' who have learned about the

> problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists that a

> 'win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a

> whole. Once this has been accomplished, the 'radicals' can be shut out as

> extremists, the PR fix is in, and the deal can be touted in the media to

> make the corporation and its 'moderate' non-profit partners look heroic for

> solving the problem. Result: *industry may have to make some small or

> temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by the 'radicals'

> are swept aside. " * [Emphasis added.]

>

> There is one simple answer to so many welfare, environmental and health

> problems and that's the vegan option. Excuses, half measures and compromises

> are letting the animals down and doing nothing to stop the rot caused by

> human activity.

>

> Keith Mann

>

>