NZ Dairy Cruelty

is this welfare? Maybe welfare actions may push towards this direction however would this not be a form of abolition

It is welfare because will are still being killed when they stop producing, are still economic commoditiies and I would still never buy these products. I am kind of confused with you response - do you think this sort of thign is OK? On the one hand you say that all regulation is wrong, on the other hand you say that it is a form of abolition. Which is it?

Sorry if I didn't make my point clear, I'll sum it up:

You wrote - "Unlike other welfare reforms this will actually make a 'significant' difference for animals, it won't just be that the hens get another 2cm cage space, it will be that there are no cages."

My understanding is that you're saying that - a significant welfare reform may be able to abolish a form of animal exploitation or all of it by welfare actions which then, after taking part in welfare people would eventually stop using animal products. Am I right?

So my point, if one uses this 'welfare' method and an end result is a discontinued use/action of animal exploitation then the problem is abolished. I do not seriously believe that welfare can abolish animal exploitation.

I think this is where I had you confused. Sorry!

I simply believe that promoting a regulation of animal exploitation is wrong.

I have a question for you.

If you say that you're not a 'welfarist' nor an 'abolitionist', then what angle do you take in regard to this?

You say that you're not a welfarist however your ideas, for me, say welfare.

"What are your thoughts on 'significant' welfare reforms, ones that actually lose industries profits. for example, the petition 'change the law - ban factory farming'. Yes, animals would still be abused and killed. yes they would still be property, commodities. But there would be a clause added that says "exemptions cannot be justified for economic reasons". So basically all nonhumans animal would have thesame legal prtection, regardless of whether they are 'pets' or 'farmed'animals. Unlike other welfare reforms thsi willa ctually make a'significant' difference for animals, it won't just be that the hensget anotehr 2cm cage space, it will be that there are no cages"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious?  Are you seriously saying this?  You yourself have TWO websites devoted to showing the utter horror and nonsense that these "Free Range" and "Cage Free" torture institutions are, in fact we are actually carrying out a debate on one of those sites and yet you come on here, on your own website showing the absolute FOLLY of this propaganda, and say things like "significant welfare reform"?

If you need to ask these kinds of questions about industry's movement towards "cage free" or "gassing" or "banning" sow crates, or "humane" or "free range" and the supposed "loss" of profits to the industry, then you haven't been paying anywhere near enough attention to Gary Francione's detailed analysis of industry with regard to these "reforms", the uselessness and coutnerproductiveness of the animal groups promoting this torture to the general public, and that absolute insane horror of all these animals lives anyway, even under these "reformed" conditions.  But you already know that last one.  You have TWO websites devoted to exposing that!

It is so sad that you feel that this is the way to help these animals.  It is traitorous to them to promote ANYTHING LESS than their freedom from slavery and the abolition of their USE period. And the only way to do that is to fight speciesism, and you don't fight speciesism by perpetuating it, you fight speciesism by rejecting it, in everything you say and do, with a clear, united message of truth.  Otherwise you are just kidding yourself and worse, you are NOT helping the animals move ONE IOTA away from their position as chattel property, slaves, commodities and things. Things whose lives are so unbelieveably horrifying as absolutely boggle the mind.  All because people enjoy the taste, or like the way their skin looks when made into shoes and bags, etc etc etc.  All of these things, you already know!  You already know this.

Can you imagine how many more bans, REAL bans we could acheive by waking the human race up to the absolute wrongness of specieism and the embracing of non-violence and peace?  By educating everyone we possibly can into changing the fundamental way they view all life on earth including other humans by seeing that we can live justly, healthily and happily as vegans, as non speciesists and non sexists and non racists etc (this is why we oppose sexist, xenophobic etc tactics by animal groups as counterproductive),  that is easy to do, and a wonderful way to live, and that we have NO RIGHT to enslave, torture and use sentient beings, no matter how "humane" we think we are making it, no matter how much "legislation" we kid ourselves into thinking is doing any good.  It is traitorous to them to let them down in such a way, and I for one will have no part of it.  None.

Inarguably true Elizabeth. You said that so well!  

---------------------------------------------------------------------

When I first came to your website I read the FAQs:

"Just because dairy cows are not confined indoors like factory farmed animals, they still suffer immensely on dairy farms."

Sam, you wrote this and I love it! Because this is the truth! I knew you were an abolitionist right away. Abolition. Abolition. Abolition.

Now you bring hypocritical philosophy onto your abolitionist website.

Why? Why? Why? Help me out here.

We cannot deny the truth.

at 02:02AM on Aug 06, 2009

You have some very good points. I two questions for you as an abolitionist though.

 

1) What do you think of incremental abolition bans? For example, Bolivia recently banned all circus animals. Now they are still abusing and using animals for food, rodeos, science etc., but they have abolished all use of circus animasl, regardless of how 'humanely' they are treated.

 

2) What are your thoughts on 'significant' welfare reforms, ones that actually lose industries profits. for example, the petition 'change the law - ban factory farming'. Yes, animals would still be abused and killed. yes they would still be property, commodities. But there would eb a clause added that says "exemptions cannot be justified for economic reasons". So basically all nonhumans animal would have the same legal prtection, regardless of whether they are 'pets' or 'farmed' animals. Unlike other welfare reforms thsi willa ctually make a 'significant' difference for animals, it won't just be that the hens get anotehr 2cm cage space, it will be that there are no cages.  

Hi,

1). The Bolivia case is an interesting one and may be a case that abolitionists could applaud. Whether such a campaign would be initiated is another matter.  You may not know that Gary Francione wrote in Rain Without Thunder (1996) a chapter called "Rights Theory: An Incremental Approach."  Francione says there that he is attempting to open dialogue about what measures may be consistent with abolitionism - as ever, no-one took him up on this and, before the age of the internet, the large animal corporations silenced discussion.

Francione writes (1996: 191):  "I offer these criteria to begin and not to end discussion. Thus far, the modern animal movement has ignored the connection between theory and practice in favour of a sort of pragmatism that defeats itself." 

Criterion 1 was: " An Incremental Change Must Constitute a Prohibition," while number 5 was: "The Prohibition Shall Not Substitute an Alternative, and Supposedly "Humane," Form of Exploitation."

It should be said that Francione now rather regrets writing this chapter in the sense that he was attacked as though his thoughts were fully worked out, whereas he was merely exploring ideas for the future.  This, however, will not do for a movement based on Peter Singer's non-rights position. 

2). Such reforms may not mean much. Apart from the years its takes to win them, and the years it takes to subsequently apply them, by which time definitions have changed (case in point, "battery cage" becomes "barren battery cage",) one then has the problem of monitoring.  So far, all attempts to monitor have been bad and now systems like the RSPCA's "Freedom Foods" are being exposed due to the conditions in the "farms". 

Similarly, Compassion In World Farming are now spending their time and money researching and producing reports exposing the fact that the laws they spent years and money encouraging are not working.  Consequently, at the same time as welfarist websites trumpet these significant welfare advances, they are forced to acknowledge that they are not working well - or at all and, anyway, they cannot afford to adequately monitor them.

As ever, the animals are left at the mercy of speciesists who have a few more regulations to find ways around.

If you are saying that the welfare groups are going to continue doing this sort of thing, I agree.  However, it is not for me in terms of my limited time and resources (and a reducing number of years left on the planet! - the latter point may apply to all of us, actually, regardless of age).

best wishes

Roger.

Thanks so much for pointing out how hypocritical I have been. Looking back on what I've said I can't believe that I've been so ignorant and confused about something that's really quite straight forward.

Thank you Sam. 

Most of us were once in support of some form of welfare until we realised what path we should lead.

I for one am constantly learning new things being Vegan too.

I'm just listening to NZ Vegan Podcast where Elizabeth Collins is talking about an abolitionist vegan youth group, we really need somethign like that in NZ!