This is the classic capitalist practice of "divide and conquer." It saddens me that egos are infiltrating the AR movement. People, it's not about us; it's about the earth and her innocent, exploited inhabitants. I see the same thing in my dealings with leftist political organizations. My anarcho-syndicalist friends accuse me, a socialist, of being "too accommodating," etc. This is what the corporatocracy wants; this was the goal of CoIntelPro. We all want the same thing. Subordinate our egos and focus on bettering the world.

Ack. That should have read, "While I agree that counterprotesting PETA *shouldn't* be any group's primary activity..."

While I certainly agree with several other posters that counterprotesting PETA (or any other AR/pseduo-AR/welfare/neo-welfare/etc.) group should be ANY particular group's primary or even frequent activity, I do think this bears some comment:

"If one wants to focus on abolitionist only campaigns, then fine but spend your time doing that not telling others that they should be focusing on those campaigns."

Other AR advocates who are promoting a welfare-to-rights approach are the people most likely to be receptive to an abolitionist message. If I can't reach most of the general public any more effectively than PETA can (I assuredly cannot; most people will ignore ANY AR message, whether it's abolitionist or welfarist in context), Aran's saying here, essentially, that I shouldn't even be advocating for abolitionism on a one-to-one level with my fellow animal rights advocates and vegans?

When, exactly *should* I be a vocal, active abolitionist?

I accept that this is a complex issue with well-intentioned folks on all sides, who *want to do something meaningful for animals*. But it's not really about the people. If PETA and the rest of the neo-welfare movement aren't willing to listen to ANY criticism from folks *within* the movement on issues of tactics and message, well...we're not going to get anywhere as a movement. Any movement that can't brook legitimate dissent within its ranks isn't ever going to be able to effectively do anything but preach to (its own particular) choir.

Speaking of giving KFC publicity (which earlier comments had), check this out. I've been a fan of Vegan Outreach (and still am), but I am totally against this:
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/09/here_come...

Re: the Alaska wolf kill, not all wolves are shot from planes. It's common practice to chase wolves with low-flying aircraft until they are so exhausted, they can't run or defend themselves. At that point, the plane is landed, and hunters shoot the wolves on spot.

I've seen photos of hunters posing with exhausted or injured wolves. They're all smiles because they delight in killing. And after the wolves are dead (or at least made unconcious), they hang their bleeding bodies on the outside of their aircraft, as a trophy they're proud of.

It's beyond me how anyone could object to the effort to end this.

Ciara, killing healthy or treatable animals -- as PeTA does -- is not euthanasia. Giving such killing a compassionate name is part of what enables it! The sooner animal advocates refuse to accept the terms of animal control, the better it will be for animals.

<>

The difference is Friends of Animals supports the personhood of nonhuman animals and the integrity of animal rights advocacy. Both are extremely important because conscious living beings will never have rights unless both are understood.

It's appropriate for animal rights advocates to object to any group that makes deals with and promotes an animal enterprise -- and for PeTA the objection is twofold, because not only does it support animal enterprise, it falsely claims to represent animal rights.

In contrast, I think the HSUS reward is a PR tactic. Recently, animal users have been claiming that HSUS hired "terrorists". So I suspect the reward offered by HSUS is an effort to show it does not support "terrorism".

Hi all,

Interesting article Will and interesting comments by the readers.

As an activist who's been involved with the greater animal advocacy movement for some 15 years, I'm fairly well read on most of the hot issues and the controversies within this greater advocacy movement. I feel that I have a good grasp of the arguments on all sides; I'd like to think that I'm fairly objective.....afterall, some of my views throughout the years have encompassed positions that could be rightfully argued as antithetical to the other views I've held (or hold). More often than not, there has been plenty of work by advocacy orgs that I can applaud and agree with. I do not officially represent any organization and yet I am a very active advocate on behalf of animals (here's a little more on me: http://www.satyamag.com/jun07/gedo.html ). While I do hold strong opinionated views, I am very open to hearing, discussing, and considering views that I don't have much knowledge of or currently hold.

It is clear that the FoA protest in question is not the only activity that FoA is involved with. Also, the direction and demeanor of the FoA (and accompanying activists) protest seems to be focused and mature. In the past, there have been some public criticisms made by FoA representatives of other groups or animal advocates in general that I've completely disagreed with because these criticisms were not focused and / or were immature in my opinion. Nonetheless, I find there is value in a group of activists getting together to criticize another group's PARTICULAR campaign(s). FoA in their protest in question didn't appear to be stating that everything PeTA does is wrong or that anyone who supports PeTA is doing an injustice to animals and the movement for animal rights. Positions were intended to be advanced by the protest protesters. Whether or not those positions were understood is another topic altogether....it appears that some or many people did 'get' some of the points that were trying to be advanced. Because of this, I don't think that the 'counter-protest' was a waste of time nor do I think it hurts the animal RIGHTS movement (if one actually exists)...there's no meaningful evidence presented in Will's article nor the comments that follow to show this. If anything, focused, mature criticism of one's own extended circle of activists (and activist orgs) (and more appropriately, the activist's campaigns and behavior) is healthy for a movement's self-shaping, clarity of position and goals, and advancement. Bottom line: there is an appropriate time, place, and way to dissent and FoA here has made no faux pax here in my opinion.

This brings me to the issue of those in the greater animal advocacy movement who believe that any and all criticism of others within the movement is inappropriate or even divisive....there are many who feel this way, evidenced by some of the comments in this discussion thread alone. To me, it is not only completely arrogant and disturbing of someone who wishes to denounce and stifle well intentioned and meaningful criticism of others in the greater movement, but it is a very dangerous belief and activity to pursue this attempted marginalization of other's meaningful criticism. Meaningful criticism is mainly about getting ourselves to reflect on a different perspective that is felt to be of importance or value to the benefactors (the animals in this case) of the movement's efforts. It's about the re-assessment of ourselves as a better advocacy movement. It can also be about getting the public to understand that there are those who disagree with the status quo way of doing things...the PeTA's and HSUS's. For animal activists to wish to stifle other animal activist's specific and focused meaningful criticism's of campaigns and positions within the greater animal advocacy movement is akin to an environmentalist who is intentionally marginalized by those in the environmental movement simply because she is critical about 'environmental' organization X continuing to support the wholesale consumption of meat (which is widely acknowledged to be a greatly unsustainable source of "food") and said organization also having meat served at every get-together or event. Can you see how her being marginalized (told that her criticisms have no place in the environmental movement and that her criticisms are divisive) is unhealthy for the cause or the supposedly intended benefactors of the movement? It works the same way within the animal advocacy movement. I'm not stating that all criticism is justified, but we need to not be marginalized when critical of each other if there is an important (to the benefactors) issue at hand and when it is done in a way that is focused and mature.

Warmly,
LG

Would we even be having this conversation if animal rights is understood? Try this: rights are granted to persons, thus, animal rights advocacy supports animal personhood.

Reforming how animals are made into nonpersons/products -- as PeTA does -- is antithetical to animal rights. (In fact, so-called "humane" products are a marketing tool for animal enterprise that has encouraged animal use.) Collecting and killing homeless animals -- as PeTA does -- is antithetical to animal rights, and beyond that it's despicable.

Clearly, PeTA is not an animal rights group. The members of Friends of Animals who objected to PeTA's support of KFC did not criticize fellow animal rights advocates. The problem here is mislabeling PeTA.

Which vegan or vegetarian would want to go to KFC anyway? That place smells so bad.

Q&A:

1. If you're not allowed to disagree with each other, then what are you? A cult!

2. If you acknowledge that non-human animals can be exploited in any way whatsoever by humans, then what are you? A speciecist!

3. If you think that Peta is fighting for the rights of non-human animals and not commodifying them even further, then what are you? A welfarist jackass!

i'm not interested in any liberation movement that gets any of it's power from the oppression of others.

FOA paid for the defense of the filth that ran PPI.

GW, everything on that link you entered from PeTA's website about about Primarily Primates, Inc (PPI) is from a time before FoA took over.

Steve,

Will's comments are that he doesn't want FoA to "go out of their way..." FoA doesn't go out of their way to speak out against groups like, PeTA, they only respond when PeTA or HSUS does things that confuse the general public about what animal rights really means. Unfortunately for all animals, PeTA does this far too often.

You are trying to infer that the number of dissenting comments on this blog is indicative of WP's valuing of dissenting views. WP isn't foolish enough to prevent dissenting comments on his blog, but that doesn't mean he approves of dissenting comments.

-Scott

64 Honest Vegan
You are a private actor, so I’m not worried about FoA’s member’s 1st Amendment Rights. I thought you valued speech, including dissent. My mistake.


As WP implied free speech works both ways. Other people are also free to express their opinions about your words and deeds. That includes WP. As far as valuing dissent, if WP didn't, there wouldn't be 82 comments on this blog, a number of which express a difference of opinion with WP's views.

Derek,

It's not an even-handed criticism of large animal rights groups if only their perceived flaws, but not their advantages, are pointed out. Such criticism is undeniably biased. Even-handed criticism means to weigh both (all) sides of an issue.

Nor is it "simply stating the obvious" if you cannot point to a single documented case where FoA has compromised a campaign for its financial benefit. If it's so obvious, point to just one instance. Of course, no entity can spend resources it does not have -- but that's not a compromise -- that's a reality. But that is true of small grassroots groups as well (and I know this well from my activist experiences). Sometimes a small group will call off a planned demonstration because it cannot garner enough support for it. Maybe the time of the demo is inconvenient because the group's members have to work, and "depend upon (their work) for their income, their mortgage payments, their cars, etc.."

You state that as a general principle "FoA opposes all killings." You then state of FoA and Peta that "both organizations sometimes compromise these principles." Once against you fail to give a single case in support of your argument. Perhaps, and on your say-so, you know FoA, but you appear not to know it well enough to make a rational argument in support of your positions.

PETA HATERS - DON'T HATE, EDUCATE YOURSELVES!

http://www.peta.org/feat/PETAMilestones/main.html

LOL!

Nilo, what do YOU actually do for the animals every day? You obviously don't know anything about PETA. Every single day PETA saves animals from pain, misery, suffering and death. I know someone who works in PETA's Cruelty Invesitgations Dept and I have seen the photos and read the stories of and about the countless animals they save every week. You are so ignorant it's painful. As for you Dustin, your time would be better spent working at 7/11 as you and that nut you work for are loosers.

I support PETA and always will because they tell the truth, no matter how much people don't want to hear it. I commend them for making the connection between animals and the murder on the Manitoba bus. Most groups would not have the guts.

I also commend them for NEVER taking shots at other groups, no matter what. Despite opportunities to do so, PETA has never condemned the ALF nor would they ever offer a reward for the capture of anyone involved in ALF activity, as HSUS was so quick to do. They would not protest the activities of other groups, as FOA did.

If tactics turn someone off vegan activity, they were not true vegans to begin with. Despite my lack of respect for the actions of HSUS and FOA, I will not abandon the cause of animals, although I will never give any support to either of these groups or any other that would rather argue with other groups than spend time/resources fighting for animals. You do not have to agree with everyone else's tactics, but you do not have to try to polarize support for AR either.

"Experience has taught us that provocative and controversial campaigns make the difference between keeping important yet depressing subjects invisible and exposing them to the public."

That's interesting. Experience has taught *me* that P-TA's tactics have turned vegans off AR activity and closed the minds of the general public to AR issues at all. Two unfortunate examples:
1) Your attempt to get a newspaper ad in Manitoba to capitalize on the stabbing death of a 22-year-old on a Greyhound bus. Every reaction I've seen and heard in regards to this was outrage and subsequent condemnation of any message P-TA may have.
2) Your bid to advertise on the Mexico/US wall telling Mexicans that they may not want to escape to the US because of the US diet.

These 'campaigns' certainly grab attention - and you are destroying the credibility of the AR movement while you do so.

"PETA makes a point of offering something for all tastes-from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most outrageous to the most refined"

Perhaps this is the main problem. You are trying to be too many things to too many people (obviously to maximize membership). Even what few good campaigns you have, they are lost in the chaos, and P-TA itself is seen as only contradictory in its message. Respect animals, but don't respect women. Be compassionate and peaceful, but insult people from time to time. Be a vegan, but don't be picky about what you eat. Believe in animal rights, but support their commodification.
It's no wonder that I hear so often of "former vegans". With such a confusing message from the "largest AR group" in the world, people are going to miss the most important message of all.

"In the quarter-century since PETA was founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world"

You cannot be an animal rights group while you actively kill animals and campaign for organizations that kill animals on a large scale. I don't see how this can be refuted.
You also cannot claim to be an animal rights group when you obviously don't know the meaning of animal rights. You feel Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation" is the epitome of animal rights literature. Peter Singer himself has said his utilitarian philosophy has nothing to do with rights.

"with more than 2.0 million members and supporters worldwide."

Yes, your sensationalist campaigns are good at getting membership. This is also why you frequently claim victory when there's factually nothing to celebrate - so that your members can be happy about another "landmark" event and pay you more money.
By the way, how many of those two million are vegan?

Derek,

You wave off people writing here and people in Victoria who are not being paid by Friends of Animals, and you are dismissive of those of us who are. You imply that we don’t have minds of our own.

Before I worked with FoA I felt exactly the same as I do now about FoA: the group is advancing the idea of animal rights in the best possible way.

Regarding wolves, we are talking about upholding a prohibition against killing wolves or other animals from the air rather than allow it to become meaningless. It wouldn’t make sense to drop that initiative. You yourself acknowledge FoA’s intervention in a state-backed snaring scheme; you praise it. The bottom line is that we oppose all forms of killing and I assure you everyone in Alaska knows that. We’ll intervene in every killing scheme and will not stop; but you are, quite sincerely, most welcome to do what you can to obtain wolf personhood so that we no longer have to intervene in this way to keep communities of wolves from being stalked and massacred from year to year.

I do not understand why, other than for shock value, you invoke the Holocaust and Rwanda. Every kind of genocidal killing is, by definition, systematic. Those who work for the interests of people systematically killed in Rwanda are not suggesting they don’t oppose opportunistic murder.

If we have had “words” before then you must be the same Derek (I have only corresponded with one) who wrote this last year on the Vegan Freaks blog:
Derek V. Oatis says (Feb 13, 2007 @ 07:11 AM):
Gary, I greatly appreciate your work and believe your contributions have been a watershed in the crucial debate of abolitionism versus welfarism. As powerful as “Rain Without Thunder” was, the developments since its publication have made me deeply pessimistic that it can serve as a counterweight to the short sighted and self defeating campaigns of many corporate national organizations.
I will disclose that, as an attorney, I have received money from FoA …
James Crump proffered that FoA’s “campaign to ban the aerial shooting of wolves is obviously not abolitionist. It implies that some other (non-aerial) method of wolf murder would be acceptable and does not represent a departure from the property paradigm in any way. In fact, it reinforces wolves' property status by implying that other methods of killing wolves are acceptable.”
First of all, this is indeed a factual misrepresentation of FoA’s ‘Alaska wolf kill’ campaign. Some of the most powerful video I have seen on mainstream TV was the video, shown on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather (remember him???) gathered through FoA’s efforts, of Alaskan wolves caught in snare traps and being “dispatched” by a man standing only a few feet away from the snared wolf, firing more than a dozen shots from a small caliber hand gun into the screaming wolf. FoA’s campaign has, from its inception, battled against the killing of Alaskan wolves by any means and for any reason. It is unfair and untrue to claim that FoA has ‘implicitly’ supported killing by other means when FoA dedicated its resources to opposing ALL killing of wolves. Please note that FoA has persevered through this campaign without having one single women expose her breasts on behalf of the wolves . . . True radicalism lives!
Gary, I do not want to get into a back and forth but would like you to expand on how we, as activists, create campaigns that do not, by omission, implicitly endorse some ‘less cruel’ exploitation of sentient beings. I struggle within my community and constantly offend those who claim that any diminution of the suffering of animals is a worthwhile goal. A rather tired example is the devotion of so many local activists to PETA’s KFC campaign. I have burned many relationships with my criticism of a campaign that asks nothing more of the public than they eat their chicken somewhere else besides KFC…
Since then, you seem to have swapped your own arguments for those of Francione. Although Francione might have “debated” you out of a commonality of views with FoA, we are not obliged to drop our commitment to interventions because of Francione’s views, some of which are internally inconsistent and currently obsolete. We’d like to have agreement, of course, but we are not impressed with blog bullying. That’s not how animal lives will be spared, or how the cultural tendency to domination is overcome.

Pulin: I find it odd to see activists continually make a case for what amounts to a giant embarrassment for everyone.

I tried to make my criticisms even handed and point out the inherent flaws of any corporate organization. I did not say that either PETA or FoA’s sole criteria fro choosing campaigns is the ability to generate revenue. I do not believe that is the case. I was simply stating the obvious, that any multi-million dollar organization, from which many employees depend upon for their income, their mortgage payments, their cars, etc. . .cannot help but tend to consider the maintenance of its financial health. Ultimately compromises are made and subtle rationalizations are created.

Perhaps the most egregious effect is that those whose financial self interest depends upon maintaining the favor of their employers loose the ability of honest criticism. Dustin, this is not the first forum that you and I have exchanged words regarding these fundamental issues. Does it strike you as odd that the only folks that ever come to FoA’s defense is those people that FoA pays to defend them? Does that not say something?

Please reconsider my criticism of FoA’s “boycott Alaska campaign”. I certainly believe that “FoA opposes all killing of wolves and indeed all hunting”. PETA’s own pr states that it “Operates under the principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment”. These are both fine principles. My criticism is that the specific campaigns of both organizations sometimes compromise these principles.

The “Boycott Alaska” campaign has as its focus, the aerial wolf shoot program. http://www.boycott-alaska.com/
Not unlike PETA criticizing a particular form of killing, this campaign focuses only on the form of killing. The pitfall of this campaign is that if Alaska stops aerial wolf kills, the campaign is a success- but wolves can still be shot form the ground or snared. This is the same tactical shortsightedness that PETA engages in when they demand a boycott of KFC until they stop electrocuting chickens.

Dustin, your claim that these “Other killings are opportunistic rather than systematic” is truly a bizarre distinction. Do you think it matters to the wolves? Is this like saying that the Holocaust was bad because it was “systematic” killing but the genocide in Rwanda was okay because it was only “opportunistic killing”. Go take a look of the excellent video that FoA was instrumental in obtaining (and which was broadcast on CBS evening news) which was horrific footage of wolves caught in snare traps. Dustin, do you really want to defend a campaign by trying to differentiate forms of killing? Isn’t that exactly what we criticize PETA for?

This is my point, Dustin; that your position with FoA means that you can’t even criticize a campaign that focuses only on the way wolves are killed. This one campaign does not take away from the positive things that FoA does but we should be able to say, “yeah, that’s a dumb campaign, let’s do something different”. I had this same debate with Francione when I was defending FoA- and I lost.

I applaud criticism of the bad things PETA does. But this kind of criticism shouldn’t be limited to group loyalty; we need to criticize ALL bad campaigns and all wastes of resources.

Derek says FoA, like PETA, choose their campaigns for donation value. That's nonsense. If this were true FoA would not have, for example, intervened to save Primarily Primates, for a primate sanctuary that had garnered so much negative media attention prior to FoA's interventions was hardly a good business decision or an effective way to raise money. FoA got involved as a commitment to animals, not to fundraising. That's rarer and rarer these days, and obviously not appreciated by some advocates (witness this forum).

Whereas PETA's campaigns are often silly, offensively jarring, or both, often degrading both human and non-human animals; derailing more than focusing on serious and compelling issues that animal rights should answer (Just what is animal rights? What does a commitment to veganism entail? What does it mean to challenge domination on a personal and societal level? How is animal rights a commitment toward social and environmental justice?), FoA tackles these profound questions at every opportunity, instead of engaging in stunts or conventional, widely accepted campaigns.

FoA opposes all killing of wolves and indeed all hunting. Aerial hunting must be opposed because there is a federal Airborne Hunting Act that needs to be upheld rather than eroded. And there is one form of systematic wolf killing in Alaska (due to the snow cover), and that is aerial shooting.
Other killings are opportunistic rather than systematic, but we oppose those as well. We also point out that if you can have aircraft, obviously you can have vegan food. There is no picking and choosing of wolves or what's unfair.

FoA isn't a single-issue campaign group, even when intervening in a pointed situation. The monk parakeet case we've made part of a general initiative to challenge the pet trade. I joined this group because of its holistic view that no exploitation is acceptable, that vegan values are at the core of animal rights, and that humans must jettison the worldview that we have the right to dominate the entire biosphere.

Is this "sexy"? Is this "safe"? This offends no one? From our work supporting feral cats to our educational campaigns making it clear that contraceptives in free-living animals is yet another form of "disappearing"
animals, FoA always takes the serious animal-rights view and takes it further than its been presented from the academic halls -- including Francione's.

And if FoA were interested in safety, we would keep our mouths shut and maintain the status quo as represented by the ideas that are promoted by many of the more moneyed groups. Many of them pander to social biases.

FoA doesn't get into the husbandry-adjustment game at all, Derek, so no need to explain it to us. We've written about that great length ourselves.

I hope you are not biased against older advocates; some of them are the most enlightened and energetic members and supporters I've had the privilege to work with; but do you really think a "small, older and conservative base" is what prompted this thread in the first place?

Are you not aware that animals are property, Derek? If PETA had plans to take any animal refugees you shelter yourself, I suppose you'd stand there and say "Oh they are not my property, guess I have to let PETA channel them to their demise"? Don't be silly. You'd do what you need to do to protect them while still arguing, in the broader discourse, against the status on animals as property. Or for heaven's sake we'd hope so.

Seeking to have the residents of Primarily Primates returned to living with other individuals whom they know and relate to can hardly be dismissed by calling it treating animals as property, although that is their current legal status, and we are working to change that.

And Primarily Primates is hardly a zoo. In a zoo, animals are on display and often endure a great many violations and indignities as well as stress due to the public's unrelenting glare. No one is claiming, either, that having to house refugee animals who serve no purpose to humans now that their usefulness as objects of experiments has ended is animal rights. If the theory of animal rights were fully realized, vivisection would not take place--and Primarily Primates would not even exist. These animals would live free, in their natural habitats. But that's not yet the world we live in, and someone has to take care of these animals. Obviously, that costs a lot of money and entails fundraising. That's not 'desperation,' it's reality.
This isn't an academic question for me, Derek. I'm going to be working there myself later this month.

`PETA remains a force .` Well, Derek, that's your opinion and it's your right to have it. Ours is that PETA operates largely in the sphere of animal control. An animal rights organization would not actually kill animals or promote various methods of killing animals to the public. Furthermore, PETA might move young folks into the street at the expense of having something meaningful to say or being able to articulate a clear vegan message. As Lee Hall said in the Abolitionist-Online, `Yes, PETA has accomplished something:
the imposition of tabloid culture onto a serious idea. PETA gets away with it because, as the nonprofit most admired by people aged 13-24, it's pull of supporters is perpetually replenished.`

An international animal-rights organization--that actually puts animal rights unambiguously at the forefront--can serve a multitude of important purposes that grassroots activists cannot, and it can support them and also take courage from their energy. That happened in Victoria. Tackling the myriad issues that play themselves out on a daily basis requires organization and, yes, money. Such organizations can support grassroots activists and non-human animals simultaneously. Derek, you've put "animal rights movement" in punctuation; enough of that. Your and Francione's insisting notwithstanding, there is a movement.

Wow. Many of the comments here are making my eyes bleed.

First off, I am one of the vegan activists in Victoria that was involved in the protest of P-TA and KFC. I am not a FoA employee and I didn't do this because a single FoA employee organized it. By the way, I know Dave would have spearheaded this action even before his connection to FoA. Everyone who got involved did so because they are disgusted with P-TA's tactics and their effect on the AR movement. If they aren't moving us backwards they are certainly holding us firm with their outdated views of animal use (human and non-human).

Re: Waste of Time
What we did was not taking away from other AR activity that we are involved in. It was also a huge win because we've seen many comments from people thanking us for showing them that a sexist, animal industry-supporting organization like P-TA is not the be-all and end-all of animal rights. It also displayed to the public at least a sliver of sanity in the deluge of "happy" meat and naked women campaigns.

Re: Infighting or divisiveness
We are not being divisive, because P-TA does not represent us. They came to *our* town to support a huge animal killer. If anyone came to Victoria to drum up media attention in support of KFC, McDonald's, or their ilk, we would be there to oppose them. So, no, I am not engaging in "infighting" because P-TA has nothing to do with my goal - abolition. In fact, they oppose it in many ways, which makes it vital that we counter them.

Re: Consenting to sexism
To women and men both who believe it is okay to engage in sexist activity just because you decide it is okay, please, please, check out the book "Pornified" by Pamela Paul. It will clearly demonstrate why it is neither acceptable nor 'empowering' for a woman to use her body as a means to an end.

Re: "Landmark" P-TA Victories
Just because P-TA and HSUS call their animal husbandry action victorious, it doesn't make it so. For those that parrot the "landmark" and similar terms, are you actually analyzing what's going on? In the case of KFC Canada, these reforms may or may not be instituted in the future, they will be self-regulated (and that always works well, doesn't it?), and they were going to be adopted by KFC Canada anyway because they make chicken killing more efficient and profitable! And don't get me started on their "cruelty free" menu option...
KFC Canada must be laughing every time they see P-TA acting as their personal marketing agency - for free!

Finally, in regards to P-TA being a wonderful, AR organization that has done more for AR than anyone... I could say many things but I'll just quote the result of a meeting between KFC Canada and P-TA:
"we found out that we had no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated."

I am adamantly opposed to KFC. Even if I didn't have near-limitless reasons to oppose P-TA, that quote would tell me all I needed to know.

Let me preface my comments with the disclosure that, in the past, I have had a very close relationship with FoA. I also have friends who are activists and who I respect tremendously that work for PETA and FoA.

That said, I can confidently hurl metaphorical stones at both organizations. The inherent flaw of any large company, and both FoA and PETA and are indeed top-down corporations, is that they must fund raise to survive. If you are Victoria Secrets, it’s not hard to get the public to pay attention to your campaigns. If you are an organization that promotes a philosophy which advocates a radical change of lifestyle for the majority of people out there, you’re in a tougher spot.

The fact is that both FoA and PETA choose their campaigns with an eye toward what will create contributions. This is an insidious force which manifests itself in different ways for these organizations but, in both cases, ways which I believe are damaging to the ‘animal rights movement’.

PETA, in order to maintain attention and generate contributions pursues campaigns that are both “outrageous” and “winnable”. The “outrageous” being naked women or “got beer” type stuff. Personally, I find these campaigns range from silly to offensive. Yes they get attention, but so does flinging poo. Whether they help give serious consideration to our ideas is debatable. They do generate contributions and thus their existence.

PETA’s winnable campaigns come in the form of asking for “reform” measures, such as an extra few inches for battery hens or some other more “humane” form of killing. Gary Francione and others have written at great length as to why these “reforms’ are not only useless but are probably counter productive. I tend to agree with this take and I do believe it is important to challenge these efforts and that we can do so in a way that is beneficial to the movement and actually builds our cause.

Similarly, FoA chooses campaigns that are “sexy”. They may not use naked women but it would be difficult to say that the issues that FoA focuses on are central to our movement or represent a significant portion of animal cruelty. While efforts to halt the killing of Alaska’s wolves, stop the gassing of monk parakeets in Connecticut, or provide bigger cages to a handful of primates in Texas are important, they are first and foremost “safe” campaigns that effect very few individual animals and offend no one. Few members of the public shoot wolves from planes or raise chimps.

In this way FoA is something of a mirror image of PETA. PETA chooses “shocking” campaigns to excite its young and large base of ‘radicals’ while FoA chooses safe and unthreatening campaigns so as to not offend its relatively small, older and conservative base.

Like PETA, FoA also sinks to “reform” campaigns. For example, a fair criticism has been made regarding FoA’s current Alaska wolf campaign. While FoA has done some great work in this campaign in the past, the current goal of this campaign is to pressure Alsaka to stop it’s “aerial wolf-control program”. Just as a chicken killed by electrocution is just as dead as a chicken killed by suffocation, a wolf shot from a plane is just as dead as a wolf killed from the ground. Both PETA and FoA focus on the means of killing since everyone can say they’re against cruel or ‘unfair’ killing. While the street activist can focus on the killing itself, a corporation that demands revenue to survive must first consider what creates donations (and then maybe consider the animals). For either PETA or FoA, a true articulation of the principles of animal rights would be financial suicide.

The recent disaster that surrounds primarily primates is a stain upon both PETA and FoA. While there is tremendous debate regarding what exactly happened, I believe that it is irrefutable that both organizations exploited this facility and its non-human inhabitants. PETA chose, instead of simply fixing any problems on behalf of the animals, to make Primarily Primates a legal ‘test case’. When one considers all of the atrocities committed against non-humans, I find it inconceivable to make an animal sanctuary (no matter how flawed) the vehicle to propound moronic and failed legal theory. PETA actually used vivisectors as their advocates in this case. How freak’in f’d up is that? How is that not the antithesis of “animal rights”?

In response, FoA poured tremendous resources, not solely to the care of the animals at Primarily Primates, but in a pr battle against PETA. This battle then turned into a legal battle for the return of various animals to Primarily Primates, animals that FoA argued were their property. How freak’in f’d up is that? How is that not the antithesis of “animal rights”?

Now, just as PETA exploited the horrible images of the animals and conditions at Primarily Primates, FoA now uses colorful images of happy primates to pump money into their coffers. However pretty the enclosures for these animals may be, Primarily Primates remains a zoo. So desperate is FoA to spin its possession of these creatures as animal rights and keep Primarily Primates at the forefront of is fund raising, FoA actually opposed the CHIMP Act amendment which prohibited the return of primates from sanctuary to research.

For better or worse, PETA has become synonymous with “animal rights”. I cannot take away from PETA, Newkirk, and others the huge advances PETA made in moving the issue of “animal rights” from nowhere. PETA remains a force in making other groups, like FoA and HSUS, at least appear to be animal rights advocates. Unfortunately, few of these other groups make any effort to support grass roots work. PETA, however it serves its self interest, does an far better job of moving young folks into the street, where all activists belong.

Unfortunately, I have to ask if PETA, at least in its current form, has outlived its usefulness. I don’t pretend to have a bunch of ideas as to alternatives or exactly what we should be doing. That does not change the fact that supporting organizations that advocate the gassing of chickens or battle for their 'primate property' is supporting failure.

I read about the case against PPI (PETA and ALDF)--does anyone know why FOA was defending PPI?

Thanks Rick for noting FOA' support of Primarily Primates. FOA paid for this hellhole's defense:

http://www.peta.org/feat-chimpanzees_breakingne...

Also, to all the big mouths out there who don't like some of PETA's tactics, stop denegrating the life-saving work it does every day. Don't be jealous and don't HATE.

I think the criticism against PETA regarding their promotion of KFC is well-founded and appropriate. Animal rights organizations probably shouldn't be promoting chicken-killing, fast-food companies. Or rather, I'd prefer my small contributions to PETA didn't go to that specific cause.

I think the criticism against PETA that they're sexist isn't well-founded and is inappropriate. It makes the critics seem like prudes who hate women's bodies, sexuality, and maybe even women. It certainly doesn't feel like the feminism I know and love - the one that considers women's political speech, even when it comes in the form of nudity, as something that ought to be protected and respected. Or rather, I'd prefer that my small contributions to FoA didn't go to that specific cause.

But honestly, I think it's no big deal and I think it's actually probably a good thing. I don't really see it as infighting. I see it as more press :)

Potter's spot on.

I'm rocked with laughter that FoA would challenge anyone's fundamentalism or tactics so soon after their recent (on-going?) inexplicable legal battles to regain control of animals rescued from Primarily Primates.

FOA sucks. All they do is attack other groups. In fact, it's the only thing they are marginally good at.

"Recruit new vegans???" You make it sound like a cult!! It seems to me that showing people where their meat comes from should be enough. If it isn't, then those people may not be worth "recruiting."

Again--I agree with Will. I think AR groups need to quit fighting with each other and focus that energy on fighting for the animals. The bottom line is that the woman in the lettuce bikini is going to live another day and the animal in the lab is not. If you do not like PETA's approach, then don't work with PETA. I think that Animal Rights is a huge undertaking that can benefit from many different approaches and I try to respect them all, even those I don't directly support. However, I do not respect groups that stab other groups in the back.

You are a private actor, so I'm not worried about FoA's member's 1st Amendment Rights. I thought you valued speech, including dissent. My mistake.

You aren't saying, at least as far as I can tell, that you disagree with the substance of FoA's message, just that you want them to shut up if they don't agree with the mainstream. I think that dissent is inherently valuable, in this case to hopefully bring a movement back on track.

PR is PETA's thing, that much is obvious. The fully clothed guy doesn't look to me like the one who's out there for PR. Near as I can tell, one of FoA's passions is educating people about the true meaning of animal rights and distinguishing it from the ridiculous meaning now attributed to it. It sure is harder to recruit new vegans when so many think that animal rights advocates are lunatics that wear chicken suits or lettuce bikinis. That's just what Dave & co. are doing.

"But Will, that’s just what’s so ironic about it. You seem to want to protect speech and at the same time condemn what speech you don’t like (FoA’s speech)."

Yeah, that's pretty much the entire concept of the First Amendment: believing that someone has the RIGHT to say something doesn't mean you have to AGREE. There's nothing "ironic" about what I'm saying: I'm not saying FoA doesn't have the right to do whatever protest they want, I'm saying I don't agree.

How about this, for both HSUS and FoA: work on the issues you're passionate about, in the way you feel is appropriate, and if reporters ask you about direct action or Peta or whatever, state your case... But stop going out of your way to smear other groups for the sake of personal PR.

But Will, that's just what's so ironic about it. You seem to want to protect speech and at the same time condemn what speech you don't like (FoA's speech). The government, too, is clouding their repression in language that sounds like you're doing what you believe in by acting for the common goal.

"Honest Vegan":
Oh my God, you've exposed me! "Thinking strategically," "focusing resources"... I'm EXACTLY like the Bush Administration! Except for, well, um, everything I believe.

Here's what's bizzarre to me:
"But in this political climate, one where activists are being labeled as “terrorists” and the planet is approaching environmental collapse, I think it’s essential to think strategically, and focus energy and resources where they are needed most. Am I the only one who thinks that protesting another activist group shouldn’t be the top of anyone’s list? "

Using the "political climate" to say that we should fall into step, that we should "focus energy and resources where they are needed most." This rhetoric sounds like it's converted from a speech about terrorists and why Americans should accept restrictions on their freedoms! Speaking out against PETA is the unpatriotism of the animal rights movement.

Bush: "Inside the United States where the war began, we must continue to give our Homeland Security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act."

ACLU: "In separate but related attempts to squelch
dissent, the government has attacked the
patriotism of its critics, police have barricaded and
jailed protesters, and the New York Stock Exchange
has revoked the press credentials of the most widely
watched television network in the Arab world. A
chilling message has gone out across America:
Dissent if you must, but proceed at your own risk."

I like that FoA has the boldness to stand up for true animal rights when it means being marginalized not only by the meat eaters, but also by many vegans. Thank you for NOT SELLING OUT, FoA.

How ironic that so many posting here would like to condemn the speech of FoA & Dave, and are simultaneously upset about restrictions on their speech. Lettuce not stifle criticism. Blindly following the leadership of PETA (or anyone) is a dangerous thing, but many of you seem to be doing just that. Pay more careful attention to what the organizations are doing. Which organization is killing animals? Which organization has salvaged and rebuilt a primate sanctuary? Which organization is marketing for a fast food giant that mostly sells dead bird and is promoting an item that is not fully vegan? Which organization is providing a thoughtful message to the public and internally? Which organization will do anything for publicity?

PETA vs. FoA over KFC has nothing to do with the FBI.

i like how peta is the only group with the boldness to get out there and tell people that beheading a human is as ethically objectionable as slaughtering animals, yet you all claim that they have some sort of welfarist agenda.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_4w_sLLEcau...

What a surprise that in addition to wasting resources protest PeTA (whom I do not like at all, but seriously, waste of time and effort in this instance), FOA staffers have written many lengthy comments here- DURING WORK. Look elsewhere on the web and you'll find many lengthy comments by FOA staffers, on vegan boards or listservs, posted during work hours. How helpful is an org that wastes so much time preaching to (or against) those who are already vegan? Do something that advances the cause more significantly than that.

I would like to add that the issues of Federal disruption of AR activism with AETA, etc., and movement unity are separate issues.

If these people from PeTA were being arrested, thrown in jail, and labeled terrorists, similarly to the SHAC 7 or the current situation in Austria, then they deserve support, at the very least they deserve everyone, AR activist or not, to step up and oppose such authoritarian nonsense from the government, simply on the grounds that it reeks of fascism, and fascism must be fought. Supporting them does not mean that one supports their cause or their methods - it simply means that they do not deserve that kind of punishment for their activism.

But that still doesn't mean that we can't openly criticize their tactics. It was only a matter of time before SOMEONE within the movement did SOMETHING to publicly challenge PeTA's lunacy. Better late than never, I think.

To those who have said it's appropriate for FoA to go out of its way to protest and condemn another animal rights groups: Is it appropriate for the Humane Society to go out of its way to offer a reward for arresting "extremist" animal rights activists?

Check out today's post here.

If not, what's the difference?

Andy:

"I expected better than this kind of “anything to help the animals” blind-eye journalism."

Can you point to anywhere, in this post or anywhere else, that I've said anything at all close to that?

And while you're at it, I would love to hear your evidence of how "like the red scare before it, green scare fear of police is being used to tow the line and stop any kind of discussion about what this “movement” should be doing in the name of unity." Silly me, but from everything I've ever seen that was the exact opposite of what took place: instead of doing anything in the name of "unity," people turned against each other, pointed fingers, testified, named names, pledged loyalty oaths and attacked each other.

I can see where PETA gets all the money to fund investigations and experiments into alternative but more profitable ways to kill chickens.

I've got to say I'm surprised at your analysis, Will. I've read this blog for a long time and generally liked it, so I expected better than this kind of "anything to help the animals" blind-eye journalism.

I won't go into PeTA's blatant role as an advisor and advertiser for the animal death industry (as noted in your picture "Free Faux Chicken Sandwich" and nothing about animal welfare, let alone rights), but writing an article reprimanding activists for not being lead by a hegemonic nonprofit and comparing that to government assassinations is laughable. Ironically, like the red scare before it, green scare fear of police is being used to tow the line and stop any kind of discussion about what this "movement" should be doing in the name of unity.

I think a more appropriate Propagandhi quote would be, "I'll call you on your shit, please call me on mine" from "Apparently I'm a PC Fascist (Because I Care About Both Human and Non-Human Oppression)".

Just found all this and reduced to skimming as I got further along. A couple thoughts:

If people think the average person is going to care enough to differentiate between animal ethics groups, I think they're kidding themselves. We're all loony to most people. But if they did, in this case I think they'd be far more likely to prefer the pro 'veggie sandwich on the menu' and lack of uptightness about sexuality of PeTA's position versus the position of the counter-protesters that PeTA's not righteous/leftist enough in their attitudes.

And as many bumperstickers say about abortion, if you don't like a lettuce bikini, don't wear one.

Since when is it sexist to be sexy in public?

Vegans tend to have more fit, healthy bodies. Is there anything wrong with making that well known while spreading the word about animal rights?

I think it was completely ligament to protest PETA. PETA is seen as the head or face of our movement and they do awful things like put girls in lettuce bikini's, naked girls in cages, and encourage people to eat at KFC. not to mention that they really are boarder line welfarist. I feel that this protest against PETA is a step towards showing the AR movement isn't PETA and PETA isnt the AR movement.

To respond to Dave's questions:

* "Should PETA be promoting KFC, and is this vegan or animal rights activism?"

Any animal rights activist (PETA or not) should support increased vegan options. Right? If Wal-Mart has soy milk, great! If KFC has vegan chicken, super! If your local co-op has veggie burgers, excellent. The more the food is out there, the better. You don't have to eat it. But you should support the availability. And you for sure shouldn't waste your time speaking out against it. Do you really only support 100% vegan places? And even so, do you really think that 99.9% of the public only patronizes those places? There needs to be options for people to have veganism accessible.

* "is sexism a legitimate part of our activism? (And yes, this *is* sexism. PETA is relying on sexist people to react to this, and further entrenching this mindset, as opposed to challenging it.)"

Way to have an open mind, bro. Why don't you stop using hollow words like "sexism" and get to the root of what you mean. Is a woman doing what she wants with her body defeating to the movement? Based on the massive amounts of press coverage which PETA seems to get by doing silly things like wearing lettuce, I'd say it's a darn good idea. I just wish the media would care more about some guy's package. But they don't. People are lame. Accept it and move on. Don't blame PETA for hustling the system to raise awareness. It seems like these women are empowering themselves and helping animals. Shame on you for trying to tell them how to live their lives. What are you a fascist? Do you really not have any better thing to do like leaflet or something?

*" is killing chickens with gas a ‘victory’?"
It depends what your goals are. If your goal is to reduce suffering by implementing a less cruel killing method, then certainly it's a victory. If your goal is to achieve total animal liberation, then certainly it's not a victory. But is it a step in the right direction to have a multi-billion dollar corporation do this? Sure, how could it not be?

*" what would be constructive ways for a community of activists who are deeply offended with PETA’s actions to express this?"

Write them a letter with a suggestion on how to achieve the same goals of raising awareness and pressuring companies. I doubt there is a more effective way. Do you have any suggestions? And no, destroying the capitalist state is not a reasonable answer. Grow up and deal with it. Is PETA showing up at your events and disrupting them? Sometimes grown men and women just need to accept their differences and work in the way they feel best helps animals.

That’s probably the most facile and ill-considered conception of the content of CAPERS IN THE CHURCHYARD I’ve yet to read, Will, and you apparently miss the biggest irony here: Sexism and other displays of disrespect for human people could just be part of why other progressives have not defended animal activists’ rights against repression the way they ought to -- because potential allies just don’t understand animal rights as a progressive movement.

As the environmental journalist and author George Monbiot once put the point, activists `who appear to respect the rights of every mammal except Homo sapiens` are `a gift to the state`.

That, and much important context, appears in the book you’ve dismissed in your comment above.

And is it really so odd that FoA and the vegans of Victoria have a common perspective? Many people in my local region as well agree with the perspective of Friends of Animals.

I've heard good things about your work and I'd like to avoid having this interaction cloud my view. I hope you'll extend the same courtesy. You and your readers might be interested in a piece readily available on FoA's website that addresses the growth of repression: They’d Have Been Wise to Invent It
A Guide to 'Eco-Terror` Discourse, and the Money Behind It. See http://tinyurl.com/5l8s8w

With best wishes,

Lee Hall.

Hello Will,

With all due respect, I do not understand in the least how FoA's counter demonstration helps the FBI or any governmental agency in it's "war" against animal activists.

Do you really believe these agencies aren't already aware of the differences? There are numerous websites out there that delve into the differences already between animal rights groups and animal welfare groups.

I just do not see how this has been a "gift" to the FBI as someone else mentioned or in any way helps that agency.

I think it makes the movement stronger and empowers those who have had these thoughts but were afraid to express them because they are usually beaten down by PETA supporters who have blinders on. Just like I did for years.

This demo was just one event that showed the public that there are those who disagree with animal welfare groups such as PETA as they align themselves with animal abusing corporations like KFC, for one thing. And for another, it shows a much different perspective on the use of "sex" (and that was the term PETA employee Nicole Matthews used) to express rights for animals.

For the record, FoA conducted a similar event several years ago at a "naked" tiger demo in Bridgeport, CT. At that time, I had helped PETA for the 2nd year in a row to organize the demo because at that time, I believed that it helped attract media and the message of animal suffering would be addressed. When FoA did this, I was apalled and angry, as many have expressed on this blog that they are regarding the KFC event. I actually contacted the person at FoA who organized this and we exchanged several emails about it, not very friendly exchanges I might add. (We did end up working together on other events at a later point in time.)

It wasn't until I opened my mind and realized that what FoA did was actually a very positive step for the animal rights movement. It showed those in the public who chose to look away when PETA came into town because of they disagreed with PETA's ideas and approaches, that there are those who take a very different approach and have very different ideology than PETA and that yes, animal rights and the suffering of animals is a social justice issue and not something that is to be taken lightly.

I hope that those reading this blog and comments will cause others to think a little bit more about what has transpired. Thank you.

Come on now, Dave. Every sign has an FoA logo, the news article has you quoted as an FoA rep, blogs have reposted write-ups by FoA employees... and you're saying that this wasn't really an FoA action?

It's also quite disingenous to say that FoA rarely bashes Peta and other groups. A quick search of the FoA site brings up dozens and dozens of hits to the contrary: not just attacks on Peta, but other organizations as well. And FoA published an entire book condemning SHAC and "direct action" just a few months after the SHAC 7 were convicted as terrorists, and, disturbingly, while their landmark First Amendment case is pending appeal.

The point of my blog post isn't to discuss the "issues at hand" that you list (although it's wonderful that people are doing so, that's not the focus of this website). The point is that, at a time when industry groups, corporations, and corporate politicians are doing everything they can to divide and destroy the animal rights movement, some AR groups are doing everything they can to capitalize on those divisions for publicity.

I'm glad someone got out and protested Peta. I've weathered much criticism from Omnivores about Peta when they learn I am Vegan. It's kind of a good thing that I can point to an image to back up my explanation that Peta isn't representative of all AR groups.

On the other hand, I'd be worried if they protested Peta more than they protested animal cruelty.

To further clarify some points:

* this wasn't a 'bunch of men' at a protest, not that this should matter (isn't that sexist?) - there were two women protesting as well: http://picasaweb.google.com/foa.victoria/200807...

* if any cared to read my previous posting, this wasn't entirely an FoA action (tho thankfully is willing to speak out) -- this action was brainstormed and executed by a dozen local activists. It isn't accurate to peg this as an 'FoA PETA-bashing' action, rather than what it was: Victoria's community of vegan animal rights activists upset with the way PETA portrays us.

* In the vast scheme of things, FoA hardly does any 'PETA-bashing', and it's a very unfair portrayal of the organization i work for. While yes, we are willing to critique groups that claim to be advocates of animals yet promote alternative agendas, we have our own programs, where the vast majority of our time goes. Has anyone visited www.VeganMeans.com - our new vegan info website? Visit our home page to see what else we've been up to.

* Yes, i was handing out copies of The Victoria Vegan, a local vegan newsletter we produce, which of course lists all the vegan offerings in the city: www.TheVictoriaVegan.com

So let's get away from distracting from the topic with FoA-bashing (funny that critiquing PETA is so wrong, yet FoA-bashing is accepted), and instead discuss the issues at hand:

* should PETA be promoting KFC, and is this vegan or animal rights activism?

* is sexism a legitimate part of our activism? (And yes, this *is* sexism. PETA is relying on sexist people to react to this, and further entrenching this mindset, as opposed to challenging it.)

* is killing chickens with gas a 'victory'?

* what would be constructive ways for a community of activists who are deeply offended with PETA's actions to express this?

Thanks to all for their thoughtful contributions, i wouldn't be posting if i didn't think this was an important topic that needs further investigation and consideration.

- Dave (Victoria, BC)

Hi Will, and thanks for the link. Sorry I'm so late to the party.

As someone who was a PeTA member for nearly two decades, and since they really were an animal rights group (in the 80s), I experience a lot of frustration over PeTA representing animal rights (ergo, me) in 2008. I didn't see the demonstration as infighting but as clarification, and an emphasis that not all animal rights activists are PeTA members, agree with their tactics, or agree with their advertising for KFC. I don't think the average person even knows that there's an alternative to PeTA's way (for those who think animals aren't ours to use). Furthermore, I don't know if the average PeTA member is making those connections (I didn't until a couple of years ago).

I do appreciate seeing this as a gift for the FBI, and I didn't think about that before you mentioned it. I suppose that we all have to factor that into our decision making with any kind of activism. Am I painting a target on my back, and if I am, is that going to stop me from doing what I think is right?

I hear the point about not wasting time with "infighting" but that is not really what this is - this is about what we stand for at its very base - I don't stand for the degradation and objectification of women as part of an "animal rights" strategy" nor am I willing to be a part of something that promotes KFC who STILL kills tons of Chickens just cuz they see the potential profit in selling faux chicken - what is that . . . ? lame, insulting, ridiculous, counter productive and must be called so in some attempt to clear up the confusion about what animal rights MEAN!

Very interesting discussion. Godiva syndrome. a) The implication that the only way women can get attention is by showing thier bodies. b) The belief of women than they can only make an impact on others BY showing thier bodies.
What a shame that we still live in a world where such beliefs are held. Yes, sometimes they do make an impact, but isn't it time women can be heard without their flesh being seen?
As far as the counter protesting goes..I think it's the best thing since sliced bread! About time people begin to understand the difference between animal rights beliefs and just controlling the actions of others. PeTA is about controlling others, including animals. KFC recieves thier wrath if they don't oblige their demands, their support when they bow to thier will....Animal rights is clearly the opposite opinion, embracing respect, not control, of life and the living. Well, if we excuse the militant "animal rights" brigade, that is.
regards,
lisa

So like I was walking down the street today and my breasts fell out of my bra and I felt the eyes of all these men molesting me and exploiting me. And I was like "where is that guy with the sign? Can he come and put my breasts inside my bras so I can stop being exploited?"

Oops, somehow lost this sentence from the middle: But don't mistake their good intentions with an effective campaign or one that moves us toward animal rights.

I must say I'm a bit surprised to see this coming from you, Will. I think Dave put out a valuable message, and I respect him for it. My constructive criticism for you, Dave, is this: Next time (and I hope there's a next time), would you consider handing out business cards for nearby vegan restaurants while you're protesting the marketing of KFC and women as sex objects?

I grew up thinking that PETA = animal rights. But I've come to learn that while they claim to present the animal rights position, they are way off. There are many kind and well-intentioned people who participate in PETA demos and activities. It is a huge problem for serious animal rights activists that the general public sees a ridiculous (and yes, sexist) campaign or demo and thinks that animal rights activists are crazy. This is undeniable. Thank you, Dave, for standing up for animal rights and taking a quick break from your other tireless activism to get in the public eye and say "this is not what animal rights means." Many people don't know that, so someone needs to tell them. It will take time and you'll get objections like the ones on this page, but our efforts in sowing the seeds of meaningful change will eventually take root.

And regarding comments about KFC Canada, I am so freakin' sick of all of you self-righteous, holier than thou vegan police at Friends of Animals!!! WHY can't you realize what an enormous breakthrough this is?! This really chaps my ass! Because KFC Canada is offering the Classic Vegetarian Sandwich, anyone in Canada can go into a major fast-food restaurant and buy a veggie chicken sandwich...that is HUGE! And let's not forget the precedent-setting steps that KFC Canada has taken to improve the lives of the animals: KFC Canada has agreed to hold its suppliers accountable for upgraded standards of animal welfare. And yes, I realize that it is a tiny step and that they are still profiting from animal suffering, but it's a step in the right direction and they are continuing to make improvements and keep the public updated.

In a perfect world, animals wouldn't be tortured and killed for any reason, but have you looked outside lately? It's not a perfect world by far. And may I remind you that unless you are shopping ONLY at all-vegan grocery stores that sell no animal products or anything tested on animals, YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING as going to KFC Canada. So, I wouldn't throw any stones if I were you.

Like it or not, right now KFC Canada is paving the way and other fast-food chains are watching, so the more successful the Classic Vegetarian Sandwich is, the higher the chances are that other fast-food chains will follow suit. And this is basic economics, Dustin, the old law of supply and demand. If we don't support it, they will stop selling it, and then who looses ultimately, people? That's right...the animals. Think about it!

"With friends like these, who the f*** needs COINTELPRO?" Right on.

Friends of Animals (FOA) likes to position themselves as an abolitionist organization working in defense of animal rights.

However, rather than proactively struggle for liberation, it seems they'd rather waste time and money criticizing others, be it aboveground groups like PETA or underground activists who break the law to rescue animals from torture and certain death.

There's a reason that there is no negative mention of FOA on the website of the corporate-front group Center for Consumer Freedom: FOA is no threat.

Let me get this right. Friends of Animals spent their time dictating how women should participate in social change and condemning the mainstream incorporation of vegan food into society? It's one thing to disagree with a tactic, but come on now, this isn't pre-school.

As a feminist, I can think of nothing more patriarchal than a group of men showing up at a demonstration to critique the way that I'm dressed and inform me of the 'proper' approach to advocacy. As an animal rights activist, I can think of nothing more despicable than an organization that sustains itself on donations collected in the name of advancing animal rights, and then uses them to attack, not factory farmers or vivisectors but other groups who are advocating for animals (and in this case, women giving away vegan sandwiches to people who have probably never tasted faux meat in their life, and aren't likely to do so at a vegan restaurant). If you are concerned about the way that the public views PETA, why not define yourselves by waging a campaign in the manner that you would like to see one conducted instead of just defining yourself to the public as people who dislike PETA? Because in over a decade of activism, I've rarely heard of FOA doing anything that hasn't involved trashing another group's efforts, which, since FOA hasn't bothered to make much of a name for themselves, probably means very little to the general public, but leads to plenty of nasty, unproductive backbiting within the movement. And while FOA activists are taking days off to bash PETA, rest assured that the CCF, the FBI and other enemies of the animal rights movement are hard at work coming up with ways to do just the same thing. Thanks so much for covering this, Will.

Matthew: I agree with you completely. I think the sexism/exploitation issue only arises with people telling women that they are being exploited. As a woman, I really think I am the best judge of when I am being exploited and find it offensive that other people think they need to tell me.

For those who criticize PETA's euthanasia record--what would you suggest?? No-kill is not always the best option. Look at what happened with All Creatures Great and Small--thank God they were finally closed down!! I have worked at a kill shelter and know how hard it is for those workers to have to do society's dirty work, especially when their own pets are altered. It is easy to point the finger at those who euthanize when, in fact, we have ourselves to blame--for lack of sufficient spay/neuter laws, lack of breeder regulation, and insufficient enforcement of whatever laws do exist. The bottom line is--there simply are not enough good homes for all the cats and dogs who are currently homeless. I would much rather see these animals humanely euthanized than in a "shelter" like All Creatures. So--to those who criticize--what is your solution???

Not a big fan of PETA but at least they are making changes for animals. I must say after reading a couple of their newsletters and seeing this "demo" I would say I am totally embarrassed by Friends of Animals. You serve no purpose! You do nothing to help animals. you just ridicule those who help them. The most amazing garbage I read from Friends of Animals was when they criticised Vegan Outreach for only caring about food animals and not animals used for cosmetics etc. Really, Friends of Animals, what makes you so much better than everyone else? What have you don’t lately besides putting down everyone that is trying to help animals?

And Dave, next time you take your clothes off I will make sure to persecute you and make you carry the burden of ridicule and harsh judgment. Oh wait, that only happens to women. Because when Dave takes off his clothes, it's simply his choice to do so. But a woman will have to justify what she does with her own body to every single man with an opinion. Right, we are totally oppressed!!

Dustin,

Hey I'm confused about why you're offended. I've participated in many demonstrations with PETA and there's always lots of great, caring people talking about animal rights issues. It's unfair to say that simply because someone chooses to wear something, that they are compromising themselves as an individual or that PETA is being sexist. We want people to be who they are and when we start dictating what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, that starts treading a very dangerous line.

While we wish it were as simple as exposing the cruelty involved in raising and killing animals for food, clothing, and other industries to attract media attention and outrage, that's simply not the case.

While we wish it were as simple as exposing the cruelty involved in raising and killing animals for food, clothing, and other industries to attract media attention and outrage, that's simply not the case.

In a day when people are more concerned with what Lindsay Lohan is wearing than cruelty to animals, we sometimes have to get creative when drawing attention to these issues. We've found that when looking for attention, nothing works better than a naked body.

We look forward to the day when the media recognizes the importance of these issues, and when using these tactics is no longer necessary, but until that time we will use all legal methods to get the word out about the horrors these animals suffer through. The situation is critical for them, and it is crucially important that we take every opportunity we can to keep the spotlight on them.

Thanks David, but i do know what veganism is, and you still failed to answer why no one knows anything about Friends of Animals. I'm not interested in your arguments about wither it is logical or not for PETA to engage in euthanasia. I'm just stating that hardly anyone outside the AR movement knows about your organization. I think thats solely your organizations fault. Perhaps you should invest more money into protesting the horrible abuse towards animals, and not countering what another organizations is doing. And really, learn how to address arguments.

Doesn't that woman in lettuce bikini realize her own exploitation?
Good thing that guy is there with a sign to point it out to her. What would she do without that guy? Live a life of ignorance, I suppose. Poor, poor woman.

Ciara,

I know this won't sound nice and/or polite and I apologize in advance because I AM interested in a respectful dialogue. That said, you obviously have no idea what animal rights and/or veganism is if you think that PETA is the world's largest "animal rights organization." You might have the facts straight regarding their size, but nearly any definition of rights is completely up for debate. Given the number of animals that PETA actually kills on an annual basis, as Minku mentioned above, I whole heardtedly object to your assertion. It's untrue.

The point is: animal rights (and what I am talking about is the right of animals to be left alone, free from exploitation and domination) is not advanced at the expense of exploiting other animals---even if they're human.

...I arbitrarily award 10 points to Babette for referencing the Subhumans in a comment.

icould care less if if your wearing a lettuce bikini or doning some all black ninja gear or a teletubby costume...all i care about is that the word gets spread and the animals and environment become saved or protected...the subhumans once wrote a song about "conforming to non-conformity" in essence meaning that non-conformists themselves actually had set about to create (unintentionally) the same standards that the conformists they were trying to battle had originally established and i think that is squarely where this issue stands unfortunately.
it's a waste of time,energy and resources to fight the people that are effectively on the same "side" as you may be.

Dustin,
PETA has done more for the AR movement, and especially for animals than Friends of Animals ever has. You can frame the sexist argument however you like, but the truth of the matter is is that PETA is the worlds largest animal rights organization. Most people have never heard of Friends of Animals. Why? Because they don't do tactics that PETA does to get on the news. It's a shame that one animal rights organization can condemn another. Perhaps you should invest your money in real protests.

Hi Coll.

Of course you are "allowed" to do whatever you want; I am not suggesting otherwise. I don't agree with you that wearing a bikini, no matter what your sign says or what comes out of your mouth, advances animal rights. Nor do I think it advances women in our society, for that matter. Given the insidious ways that women are objectified, commodified and degraded in the media---in print, on television, on the radio, etc.---I personally don't think it's possible for sexuality and animal rights (and many of other issues of social justice) to occupy the same stage in a way that's either articulate or productive. I believe that too many people view women, almost literally, as "pieces of meat"; I don't think people or issues are empowered by stripping for a cause. This, in my mind, is not about commenting on the intentions of the women and men who partcipate in such demonstrations. I have no reason to believe that they aren't interested in doing what's in the best interests of non-human animals. But I also wonder: why should someone be titilated or "turned on" into thinking differently about the way we treat animals? Why is this a good idea? And why do so many people defend it? I understand that nudity gets attention, but when one stops to consider the reasons why---sexual objectification, whether it's directed towards a man or a woman---is it really worth it?

That's not to say I don't think nudity in and of itself is always inappropriate. I can certainly imagine a nude protest of some sort where the central issue was body image. But I digress. I am only trying to make the point that it's not the nudity in and of itself. It's about how the message is perceived and what we are trying to say.

Canaduck: I don't comprehend how this is 'actively campaigning against higher welfare standards'. I do not believe that this message was conveyed, nor was it the intention. No one is opposed to better welfare for animals---even if welfare now has misleading connotations within animal rights. In fact, I would argue that PETA is not advocating for higher welfare standards, either, when they are promoting a restaurant chain that exploits and kills chickens. Yes, they now have a vegetarian sandwich in Canada, but that doesn't negate the rest of the menu, and it does not necessitate an "animal rights group" actively promoting a restaurant. Like Dave Shiskkoff said, Victoria Canada has two vegan restaurants. Shouldn't the Lettuce Ladies, if they were truly interested in animal rights, have been promoting them?

I think we need MORE anti-PeTA demonstrations, frankly. The extent to which this animal "rights" organization has acted manipulatively and hypocritically is astounding, and the fact that the ethical implications of their tactics and campaigns go largely unchallenged within this pathetic sham of a social movement makes me sad.

There are so many vegan restaurants all over Canada that PeTA could be promoting, yet they focus a huge campaign on a NON-VEGAN menu item in KFC. And they continue to use women's bodies as billboards for animal rights. Everything to them is this utilitarian game of "the ends justify the means", and that is what the vast majority of the animal "rights" movement is unfortunately made of.

Here are some more things we should publicly protest PeTA about:

1. Killing perfectly healthy dogs and cats i shelters and undermining the no-kill movement

2. Promoting the killing of chickens by gassing them

3. Offering to spend ONE MILLION DOLLARS on vat-grown meat

4. Being yet another animal "rights" group that can't be bothered to talk about veganism up front, and being OK with the fact that only half its members are vegetarian (Imagine if half of the members of a group such as the NAACP was people who thought there wasn't anything wrong with white supremacy, for example.)

5. Using spokespeople who aren't vegan for other campaigns (e.g. fur)

If any human rights group was involved in killing of justifying the killing of humans, you bet there would be a huge uproar. Why groups like PeTA get a free pass on this in the name of movement unity, that is an absolute disgrace.

Hi Dave,
I'm really glad you posted this. Thanks for explaining this with a firsthand perspective of what motivated you all. It sounds like you've got a great group of committed people up in Victoria that want to take action, and I can't help but think you can create your own positive representations of animal activists independent of any other organization. 'Cause between Peta, HSUS, SHAC, ALF, etc, trying to protest groups you disagree with could become a full time job. Best, Will

Dustin-

Last I checked animal rights means fighting for the rights of animals. KFC Canada changed their whole welfare program to take away the worst abuses. They also are providing a meatless option. In a time of corporations refusing to switch from their cheap, ineffective and most importantly inhumane ways, this compassionate choice made by KFC Canada should be applauded. If every vegan refused to eat anywhere that served animal products despite their being veg options on the menu it would greatly hinder our cause. We need to support compassionate choices and decisions always, ESPECIALLY when made by large restaurants that could potentially help influence changes in others.

Having the choice as a woman to stand up for what you believe in, by whatever means possible, is the epitome of feminism. Women have THE RIGHT to use their bodies however she sees fit. What is sexist about using your body to make a statement? Is that not allowed? Is it better for a man (or woman) to tell us were doing it wrong? Last I checked I'm allowed to vote as well as stand on the corner in a bikini to fight for animal rights.

Hi Will, thanks for bringing up this important topic.

One of the reasons we opted to do this is that in Victoria, there are over a dozen activists that I collaborate with, and ALL were thoroughly disgusted with PETA’s messages: let’s all eat at KFC, killing chickens with gas is a victory, and using sexism as activism is okay.

This wasn’t just me, or just Friends of Animals – it was the activist community here. We had two other protesters out with signs. Three others helped produce the signs. Most were prepared to come out on Friday (and had even planned to take the day off work), when the demo was originally advertised, but I learned on Tuesday that it was switched to Thursday, so our presence was severely diminished.

None of us want to be represented this way, as vegans or as animal rights activists.

PETA admits that they are a media group. Their whole focus is getting media attention. The media isn’t going to cover a story of activists opposing this behavior the day after PETA was here, so our only option was to organize the *real* protest of the day. A protest against exploitation – which at its heart veganism and animal rights is about (although this often gets overlooked by the mainstream.)

Will - what would you propose a mature and concerned community of activists, sick of this type of representation, do when PETA comes to town?

- Dave (Victoria, BC)

PS – this didn’t take much time either, a few hours to do the signs, and an hour to stand outside KFC. And I think it was worth it to show that we’re not all in agreement with PETA, whom I know turns many away from activism.

It's good to talk about the right way to do things, it's even better to do them the way that you think is right.

Just do me a favor - everyone here - please take time to participate in an AR demo or activity this week, k?

Please?

"yo-yo":
I think you hit on exactly what I'm trying to say.

Hi Dustin:
I think the fact that I did not spend more time explaining people's oppositions to Peta's tactics might have given you the impression that I don't think people should challenge ideas and tactics within the animal rights movement. That's absolutely not the case. Those types of discussion are vital. However, I'm questioning the venue. I'm critical of these counter-protests for the same reason I'm critical of groups like HSUS going out of their way to condemn underground activists. Best, Will

I agree with you, Will.

I do not love PETA's protests. I do not love PETA. But even as a woman, I think it is a waste of time and resources to protest them.

I do agree with the idea that it's fine to remind the public that PETA is not representative of the entire animal rights movement. I feel that it's not only right but necessary to contemplate whether the KFC campaign is too welfarist. (It is, in my opinion) But to actively protest against higher welfare standards? That doesn't help anybody--especially not the animals.

One more thing:

This was NOT a counter-protest for the sake of a counter-protest. It isn't like the activists didn't have something meaningful to say, which is what, it seems to me, that you suggest by brushing this off solely as a counter-protest. First, we are saying that sexism is not an acceptable way to advance an idea. Secondly, we are saying that to respect animals means not eating them or their products. Also, the message that not every animal advocate is represented by PETA is advanced. Those are all important messages, and can't be brushed off as merely a challenge to the Lettuce Ladies who were there that day.

I myself have alot of qualms about PETA, but I think the BEST solution is if you find a group you have problems with, you can still discuss them obviously, but what is more effective is to simply 'out-do' them.
Do things differently than they do, like raise awareness of what's going on in a way that doesn't degrade women, prove to them that things can be done differently.
That's, ultimately how I've changed my mind on things, I saw that things could be done better, so I chose to do that instead.

(A)nimal Rights: I hope you will take a second look at this blog post. I'm certainly not saying that non-animal/eco issues should just wait until tomorrow. That's a stance I've actually been extremely critical of in my writing and speaking, and I've argued, repeatedly, in public forums, the press, and this website, that the animal rights movement must reach out to other social justice movements. To be very clear, I think there are plenty of issues that need to be worked out now, not tomorrow, but my point here is I don't see counter-protesting as a productive way of moving forward with anything. Best, Will

Will,

I think you are framing this unfairly in your blog post. You fail to mention any of the reasons why Friends of Animals did this. Anti-terrorism laws do not effectively give PETA a free-ride.

PETA is not a group that promotes animal rights, first and foremost. That's problematic enough: the fact that PETA is promoting a restaurant that kills millions of animals annually. Yes, they got a lacto-ovo vegetarian option on the menu. Great. But that's not a reason to promote the restaurant. That's not animal rights.

Secondly, PETA continuously employs sexist tactics to advance its supposed animal rights mission. Is that the best we should expect? Do those tactics speak for all activists? Do they speak for all women? Is sexism animal rights at its most intelligent and evolved? Is this the best we can offer?

I hope not. But you seem to be suggesting that it doesn't even matter. I respectfully beg to differ.

The public already believes that PETA is the voice of animal rights--at least here in North America. That's a shame, in my mind. They don't say or do anything that represents my personal values or my views of animal rights. I refuse to believe that just because some activists think it's not OK to question and challenge others in our movement that we should all keep our mouths shut. That's not very democratic. Unfortunately, the vegan world that I wish to inhabit is not represented by PETA or by women who allow themselves to be commodified in the process of challenging the commodification of other beings. And that's the point: that's not what they are doing.

I applaud this act. I wish more advocates were willing to stand against the non-sense that PETA promotes. No one should expect us to sit by silently and allow them to speak for all of us. It's disconcerting that that's what you suggest: that we have no right to challenge the ideas and actions in our own movement.

Donald Watson and the Vegan Society coined the term vegan more than 60 years ago. Their definition is broad, intelligent and time-less. I am horrified that anyone would suggest that we allow PETA to almost single-handedly promote an agenda that has nothing at all to do with veganism. Here's the Vegan Society's definition:

The word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Are you suggesting that the actions of the Lettuce Ladies and/or PETA are aligned with this notion in any possible way, shape or form? I don't think so. Personally, I think it's useful and important for us to challenge them at every opportunity.

What an absurd and privileged standpoint to take, Will. You're right, let's wait until tomorrow to tackle sexism. A beautiful tomorrow when eco-activists are no longer called terrorists. We'll work all the non-eco issues out then.

And for you to be alluding to an animal rights group as 'helping cointelpro'? That's not considered infighting?

I normally love what you have to say, but in this post you defend patriarchy, welfarism, and the cointelpro witch-hunt that's characterized the left's reaction to the green scare.

The problem with every movement of any kind is that, no matter how noble and necessary what they are trying to achieve is, many people make it about themselves. They take it personally but in the wrong way. I am an AR activist because I can't stand animal suffering anymore. I need it to END. And I need all people to realise that. And to do that I need to move, talk, write. And if there are other people doing it too, great! Let's do it together. Yes, there are groups that, I think, are not doing it as it should be done. But that's my opinion and if that's my opinion I, instead of attacking them, should try to do it as I think it should be done.
We are all fighting a lost cause. We need to unite and row to the same direction.
And we need to remember that what we do, we do it for the millions of animals suffering awful agonies and tortures and dying horrendous deaths. We are not doing it for us, to be known, to be admired, to be on the spotlight.

I actually have very mixed feelings about this. I really do feel that PETA hurts us as a movement and their resources would be put to much better use by another organization. The misogynist, sexist ad campaigns need to stop. Their support of kill shelters, and complete disregard for pit-bulls as "man made violent animals" put me over the top. How do you fight for animals used for human selfishness while degrading women and other animals?

That being said, do I think this is where we should be putting our energy? Certainly not. Do I agree that this sort of infighting only helps government repression? yes I do. But I am still torn, I consider myself a one ethic, one fight activist. I feel as if most of these issues of exploitation are connected and need to be fought against at once. I don't think this is a black and white issue.

Kathy--you raise a good point about PETA not participating in direct action, but not condemning those tactics, either. I'm actually going to be posting something on that topic very soon, as it related to HSUS and the recent arsons in California.

I think AR people should stop arguing against each other and focus on helping animals. Although PETA does not participate in direct action, it has never once criticized any group that does, unlike the animal welfare organizations who rush to condemn them immediately. So it really annoys me when other AR groups condemn people for not doing enough or for exploiting women. For one thing, PETA is a charity and must operate within the boundaries of the law. For another thing, as a woman, I am highly offended by other people telling me when I have been exploited. If I choose to take my clothes off, for ANY reason, that is MY choice. If I do not FEEL exploited, then I am NOT exploited. I am intelligent enough to know when I am being used and am sick of other people weighing in on a woman's right to express herself as she chooses.

I totally agree with Stephanie, and that's basically what I posted at Mary's site. Also, the counter-protest actually helped PETA, I think, to generate more publicity.

Thanks for posting that, Stephanie, I can see where you're coming from.

I think this is a very complex issue here and should open up a discussion about the negative consequences of some of our tactics as activists. The trade off of proliferating one form oppression to alleviate another. While PETA lays no claim to working for humyn liberation, a total liberation philosophy should be at the core of all radical causes. PETA's total disregard for female bodied people, and their commodification of the female body in pursuit of media attention is negligent and offensive. While I question the effectiveness of one AR group protesting another, I do understand the ideas behind said protest. Margaret Sanger once wrote that basic humyn freedom is womyn's freedom, because she contended that a free people cannot be born of slave mothers.
I think as vegans it is important to extend our circle of compassion to all living beings.

I wouldn't be supportive of any animal rights group taking up protests against PETA as their main course of action--or even as a frequent course of action--and I would have preferred that Friends of Animals focus more on their own message and on deterring people from eating at KFC than on simply showing opposition to PETA, but I don't have the same problem that Will does with this protest.

I truly don't believe that another group standing out there, showing opposition to PETA's tactics, did any harm to the AR movement--indeed, I think it was positive for the general public to see that there is disagreement within the community of animal rights/welfare groups. Ask your average person on the street what he or she thinks of PETA, and you're far more likely to get a negative response than a positive one. There's also a good chance that you'll get a negative response if you ask an animal rights activist for his or her opinion on some of PETA's tactics. So very many people are opposed to PETA's tactics involving the arguable objectification of women--and so many people in the mainstream are anti-PETA--that showing the public that not all animal rights activists like or agree with PETA either is actually something potentially very positive. Personally, my problem with PETA's campaign here is not the woman in skimpy lettuce attire--it's that a supposed animal rights group is *advertising* for a company that is torturing and slaughtering millions of sentient animals every year. In this way, PETA is the group establishing itself as an enemy of the AR movement--and as an enemy of the animals it is encouraging people to eat.

Again, I don't think the main objective of any animal rights group should become counterprotesting at PETA's protests, but I also don't think that periodically reminding the public--and PETA--that we don't all agree with PETA's positions, policies, and campaigns is wrong; it may indeed be necessary.

Some in the movement spend too much time going against other activists. If one wants to focus on abolitionist only campaigns, then fine but spend your time doing that not telling others that they should be focusing on those campaigns. At the end of the day if people see your campaign getting wins they will want to be part of it.

People complain about the amount of money PETA has and how it could be better used. Well guess what? PETA raised that money, if you want money used in some other way then you need to be as good at raising cash as PETA. We have a world to persuade. We can fight each other later :-)