“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.

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.

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”.

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

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.