Sunday, June 19, 2005

The P word

Uma had an interesting post about PETA a while back, that got me wondering why PETA is so widely seen as the bogeyman of the animal rights movement. (Out of the last four stories I browsed about zoos, three mentioned PETA in deeply negative terms.)
I think this is an important point to address, because it throws an illuminating light on common perceptions of both PETA and the animal rights movement. PETA is often identified only by its celebrity-studded no-meat ads, often in terms of some disapproval: aren't they wasting money that could have funded shelters, hospitals and better care programmes for animals?
It often surprises me is how little people know about the rest of PETA's work. It supports and runs animal shelters. It lobbies big companies in order to improve conditions for animals on factory farms. It's been at the forefront of the gathering demand to stop laboratory experiments on animals and other abuses. And the organisation can come out with positions that are very nuanced, as with Ingrid Newkirk's explanation of why PETA might encourage a ban on the breeding of pit bulls and reluctantly endorse the "automatic destruction" policy that many shelters have towards pit bulls. Anyone who thinks that PETA is lacking in subtlety should read her letter. It's a lament for the tragedy of a dog created by human beings as the ultimate weapon, subjected to constant abuse by most of its owners, and it's a recognition of the terrible paradox that animal lovers are faced with in the case of pit bulls: "we can only stop killing pits if we create new ones".
I like the fact that PETA saw earlier than many NGOs the importance of grabbing mainstream attention: you won't run animal rights stories because they're unsexy, but you'll run a go-veggie feature because it features stars in the buff, no problem, here's one star to go. Part of PETA's job is to get people who might not otherwise think about animal rights to consider the subject; if they do that because they're confronted with some model wearing a cabbage leaf or two on a billboard, that's okay by me.
What I don't like about PETA is simple: I hate the hectoring tone, I hate the stridency, I dislike being at the receiving end of a lecture, and I wish they'd use their website to answer issues of this sort, where two of their employees have been arrested on animal-cruelty charges. [It's frustrating that PETA doesn't use its website to either explain what happened, or to correct misconceptions. To take a small example, the story mentions a website called Peta Kills Animals, and also mentions that the website is aided by the Center for Consumer Freedom. What it doesn't mention is that CCF is not quite as disinterested a body as it appears to be: it represents the interests of the food and restaurant business (Wiki has a list of 1998 members of its advisory panel, which includes several members of the meat supplying and processing industry--you can hardly imagine that they'd be paid-up PETA supporters!)]
Now here's the larger point about the animal rights movement: like so many other 21st century rights movements, this is not a neat army of the faithful going out to march for a specific mission. It's a loose coalition of people at different levels of awareness, commitment, fanaticism, caring and knowledge, held together only by the fact that they care about what happens to animals. PETA is one of the many organisations that works on behalf of animals; the fact that PETA inspires so much fear and loathing is also a tribute to the way in which it's managed to catch the public eye. You don't have to support or even agree with PETA in order to be part of the animal rights movement. But you do have to acknowledge the fact that the history of the animal rights movement in this century would have been radically different without PETA. It's because they scream so loudly that someone like me has the luxury of keeping the conversation pleasant.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Deniz said...

I agree with you. I don't know what all the fuss is about these 2 PETA employees - the dogs and cats were euthanized, they didn't suffer. And it's better that they are dead than locked up in a house somewhere.

Pet Ownership is Slavery!!!

4:56 PM  
Blogger Alok said...

I wonder what pet-lovers have to say about Ingrid Newkirk's comments on the "domestic tyranny". Here are some choice examples:

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug. 1986)

"In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether" (Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988)

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild" (Ingrid Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald Mar 1, 1990)

"Eventually companion animals will be phased out...." (Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988)

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic_ (Washington D C, PeTA, 1982). p. 15)

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic_(Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15)

some more myths are busted here

11:33 AM  
Blogger Alok said...

And I find Newkirk's idea that there is some moral equivalence between the jews murdered in concentration camps and chickens dying in slaughterhouses, completely absurd if not downright despicable. "holocaust on my plate"...give me a break!

JM Coetzee tried to tackle the same problem in his latest book but only managed to make his character sound like a duncehead. that's because moral equivalence like this doesn't exist.

I still believe that these hyper-emotional imbeciles like Newkirk are doing more harm than good...they have managed to alienate the mainstream opinion so much that the british govt is planning to bring in some anti-animal rights extremist bill. More details here

What we need is sober argumentation and analysis, not emotional protestations from dimwits, who don't know their Darwin from their Dawkins. Otherwise animal rights will become yet another movement which will turn into a fashion symbol for the radical chicks and ameliorative for the anomie of the disgruntled teenagers--as perhaps anti-globalization movement has become. And that will be very bad.

Sincerely,
Alok

12:02 PM  
Blogger unixlinux said...

Nice blog. Check out my cat picture blog.

6:17 PM  
Blogger Hunt and Fish said...

Good post

4:25 PM  
Blogger Basket said...

Bon jour. Le temps amer que je vois.

Chercher le temps et quelques comment terrien ici.

Blog agréable.

Je devrai revenir plus tard.

4:34 PM  
Blogger Hunt and Fish said...

Great post, I enjoyed reading it.

Adding you to favorites, Ill have to come back and read it again later.

6:56 AM  
Anonymous Gardening said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I will pay $10 - $50 hour to work at home using your computer. No boss, set your own hours, easy work, start making money today!

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

4:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home