Performance Politics: Abstract Animals and Suffering Humans

April 4th, 2013

I’ve written on this site before about the issues with the 269life campaign as it relates to analogy, appropriation and racism. That post stirred a lot of discussion, but there is another element to this campaign that I think needs to be looked at critically aside from issues raised in that post. I believe this campaign to be fueled by, and popularized because, it both plays off of and encourages embedded whiteness and also because it plays off of and encourages performative politics. What do I mean by performantive politics? I mean that it engages in actions that are symbolic which tell us more about the person involved then the issue being referenced.

History of Beginnings of the Animal Liberation Movement

The very beginnings of the animal liberation movement were rooted in real life struggles where people intervened to disrupt or stop animal use – people physically placing themselves in front of hunt vehicles and in the line of fire. The goal – as the movement developed – was to establish a direct link between you and an exploited animal(s) to use whatever resources you had to stop that practice. Individual actions developed into large scale pressure campaigns, day light raids, open rescues and later into full scale arson and massive property destruction. Throughout, everyone in the movement realized that other animal species were not merely an abstraction, they were not an image, they were not something to be theorized – they were suffering beings that begged intervention using any means possible. This was a politic and a movement that established human beings as allies to other animal species.

Professionalization, Careerism, Consumerism and Celebrity Culture

As our movement expanded and began to professionalize, a shift occurred which saw a move towards consumerism, celebrity culture and careerism. That direct link – between advocates and the exploited – began to erode slowly and was aided by State infiltration, repression and corporate blowback. Advocates – either fearing repression, hoping for a movement career, or naively sold on new movement goals – began to prioritize vegan and/or vegetarian education and to restrict movement tactics and strategies to fit the corporate models being developed by the larger professional non profits. Campaigns, which were directly tied to real life targets, lost popularity, were isolated as radical, and lost organizers to prison. Social media and online culture facilitated this process as the “connectedness” of advocates allowed for a false sense of progress even if no real life target was established or no living, breathing animal was being advocated for. Within this movement culture other animal species have moved to the position of abstraction – they are an image, a stand in for a philosophy and a movement which has currently stalled and is self referential.

Although online vegan culture is growing, as is consumer culture and multi national non profits, actual on the ground campaigns to advocate for living breathing animals has completely regressed. Those that do campaign have to fight an upper layer of movement corporate bureaucracy that will attempt to co-opt, control tactics and divert resources and also fight against being isolated as radical. Although, by all accounts, there are more vegans in North America and that veganism is far more normalized than ever before – we have fewer active grassroots campaigns than we did in the 1980’s. Shutting down facilities and leveraging the capitalist system to the advantage of other animals is no longer a movement priority – vegan leafleting, tv ads, celebrity endorsements and bus ads now fill that space.

Also – as veganism has grown and normalized it has also positioned humans (vegans) as suffering in the place of other animal species; legal challenges which attempt to include veganism as a “human right” or that illustrate vegans as “discriminated” against all remove the position and title of ally, movement commentators have developed careers out of talking and writing about movement repression without any acknowledgment that ally movements MUST face repression, etc. Many vegans now enter the issue from different viewpoints and fail to even recognize that veganism is merely one tool towards animal liberation and not an end unto itself.

This is the atmosphere in which campaigns like 269life can flourish. 269life is not tied to any specific target and it makes reference to a specific animal only as a symbol. More importantly, it allows humans involved to re position themselves as the ones suffering – either by branding or by tattoo. Whereas movement sacrifice used to be understood as placing one’s body between the hunter and the hunted – we now see movement sacrifice in the symbolic ritual of our own (collective) suffering. This is a problem for a movement which claims to advocate FOR other animal species.

Performative Politics That Work

Ideally I’d argue for a return to the campaign based model that was successful and which built the animal liberation movement – however, I do also want to acknowledge recent tactics that are an exception to the process outlined above. Igualdad Animal – which began as a small grassroots advocacy group in Spain – made international waves with their public square demonstrations wherein advocates held the bodies of dead animals. There campaign was a broad educational/awareness campaign that had no fixed location – however, the other animals being advocate for where not merely an abstraction – they were directly in the hands of those demonstrating. The images are powerful and the tactic has been repeated by other advocacy groups with success. This is just one example of how we can use campaigns not fixed to a target (lessening the chance of repression) while still having an impact and not treating other animals as mere abstractions.

Moving Forward

The successes of the 269life campaign cannot be separated from their performative politics or their acritical approach to analogy and whiteness. I don’t want to give the idea that 269life just needs to move their events to specific locations in order to become a welcome part of the animal liberation movement (or at least the one I am part of – to whatever extent I have a say). This is instructive though for people everywhere thinking and visioning about what their advocacy will look like. Who am I helping? What position or role do I have to play in order to facilitate that process and who am I accountable to? These are extremely important fundamental questions that need to be asked of each campaign, and our movement as a whole. Many long time advocates have not voiced their criticism of the 269life campaign publicly because they do not take it seriously – that is a mistake. It is a popular campaign and it’s popularity comes as a result of some of the worst excesses of the “animal rights” movement. We need to get back to a movement that understands what it means to be an ally, and that also understands what it takes to actually remove other animals from suffering. – Dylan Powell

References

The Vegan Ideal – Why Vegan Oppression Cannot Exist
The Talon Conspiracy Archive – (Full Archive)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 54 Comments »



In Response to the Steve Best’s Stockholm Syndrome Watch – “Sakar the Faker”

January 21st, 2012

I read Steve Best’s post last night and struggled over the last twenty four hours about what the post means and what responsibility I have, if any, to respond. What is written below is crafted in a way that I hope moves dialogue forward, asks important questions, upholds accountability, provides context and also negates the seemingly on going internet battles that mar the animal liberation movement.

After reading Steve’s post, and thinking about this post, I had to think back to when I first met John Sakars. I think our first meeting was in December 2008 at a potluck event. Not long after John played a fundraiser event for me that raised funds for the AETA 4 (John has always supported direct action and has supported numerous Animal Liberation Prisoners). From the beginning it was clear that John loved attention and that “John the Performer” and “John the Activist” were two wildly different people. “John the Activist” was a shy, soft spoken person who was originally known in the community as someone who was always around to lend a hand and do thankless tasks. He would be the first to set up events and always one of the last to leave. He was open minded, challenged himself and grew as an activist in a growing community. Throughout this process John began to use social media sites, mostly facebook, to develop a network of people to market his book, his writings, his art, his music and eventually his videos. Although there were people in the community who distanced themselves from John back in 2009, most people were okay with the fact that John wrote, performed and acted in ways that weren’t always productive as they could chart the positives of his character as well. Over time and largely up to Dec 2010 there were numerous times when community members attempted to hold John accountable for his behavior in his videos and performances. These ranged from overt misogyny and racism (blackface) in videos as well as queer phobic videos that celebrated male to male rape as “funny.” As these processes failed, John’s internet persona gained followers and over time John completely replaced the community he was once active with relationships he made over social media. As an organizer, I look back on that process not just as a failure on John’s part but also as a personal failure and a community wide failure. In creating a supportive community things were over looked and not confronted earlier when they should have been. After repeated attempts, by different people with different tactics, no one was able to provide a space that transformative and accountable for John. This is an issue that comes up a lot in community building and organizing – but not something that gets talked about a lot publicly.

Since removing himself from the animal liberation community in Niagara John has traveled extensively. Although I know John has said negative things about the community he left behind, and people in it such as myself, I have largely kept silent when asked by others what my feelings are about John or where he is. I hoped then, as I do still now, that John can find a space that is transformative and I don’t want his past to make that process impossible. John is well aware of his attention seeking behavior and through extensive conversations he knows how to trace that urge within his personal history. I think most people who are aware of John’s videos and his behavior know that there are issues that need to be resolved – the divide seems to be over what the best course of action is to encourage that space. Personally, I don’t think publicly shaming people will get us there.

As for Steve’s post, Steve and I do not agree on a host of issues. I actually still have an email from Steve were he threatened, “Would love to meet you in person to express my sentiments to you through some direct action.” That said, I have at least four of Steve’s books in my bookshelf and I am grateful for his contributions to animal liberation theory. As a academic I was most surprised that Steve would address someone the likes of John Sakars. John is a fourty year old person with very few well known contacts in the animal liberation movement, no post secondary education, and little to no resources to respond. Steve co-edited a great anthology under the title of “Academic Repression.” I am saddened that someone who could so easily see the power structures that exist within academic structures would not also be reflexive enough to understand the position of power and privilege that they hold as an academic. I hope that if Steve continues on with his series “The Stockholm Syndrome Watch” that he does so with such knowledge and, ideally, confronts others with a capacity to respond. There is a disgusting element in the animal liberation movement where careerism and networking allows academics great space in our movement with very little accountability. A book chapter, a positive review, a book on a course list, a conference space, all create a vertical structure wherein tenured professors are able to silence and manipulate others within that system. The overall weight of career writing also creates a space without accountability as junior academics are supposed to read the entirety of a senior academics work before challenging a position. I don’t work in this structure, refuse it, and simply do not care if my writing closes doors. If we are actually going to go to the length to use the internet as a resource to “expose” others then I call on people to expose this issue and hold people accountable (this is in no way limited to Steve.)

As a whole this issue highlights many things that have stalled our movement. Are we critical of power structures that develop in our movement? How do we hold people accountable while still creating communities that are supportive and transformative? How do we perceive individuals in our movement? How do we understand opportunistic, egotistical, attention-seeking behavior in our movement? There are no easy answers to those questions, but I find those questions much more important than creating caricatures of others in our movement to serve ideological ends.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »



Portland Meat Collective: Judas

January 14th, 2012

News broke tonight that 17 of the 18 rabbits taken from Levi Cole’s residence were being returned via the organization Rabbit Advocates.

Writing commentary about this process, and most public cases that include other animals, brings to light so much of the conflict that exists in society about our relationship with other animals. All of the familiar rationalizations come to the forefront – the depth of domination being it’s own justification (i.e. people will always eat animals), the terrorism rhetoric, caged animals are safe animals, other animals actually prefer domination, the arbitrary distinction between “meat” rabbits and “other rabbits,” etc. I could write endless commentary on reactions alone. Some of my favorites have come from the messageboards “Homesteading Today” and “Rabbit Talk” – “Rabbit Talk” featuring the tagline “Rabbits for profit, rabbits for fun, rabbits for just about everyone.” Rabbits occupy a weird space in terms to their social construction of worth – i.e. speciesism – in that they are common pets, but are also commonly eaten for their flesh. This presents a unique narrative that is far more sadistic and perverse than most narratives around the use of other domesticated “farmed” animals. Although the title refers specifically to the role that Rabbit Advocates have played in delivering these rabbits back to Levi Cole and the Portland Meat Collective – much of our cultural narrative around rabbits relies on intimate betrayal. Claims of victory for those supporting the Portland Meat Collective are indicative of this as well. Much of the triumphalism has centered around comments of destroying those animals in celebration.

As for how this has been handled in the press, there is a notable difference bewteen the Portland Meat Collective’s website post about the rabbits return and the story run by KATU. The KATU story states that Rabbit Advocates were aware of the issue after receiving a call from Levi Cole looking for a foster mom for the alleged ten (day old) baby rabbits. This is left out of the Portland Meat Collective story which suggests contact comes from Rabbit Advocates to the PDX Meat Collective. Either way, the timeline is highly suspect as these 18 rabbits had all been rehomed by the time they realized these were the rabbits that Levi Cole and the PDX Meat Collective raise for their sadistic rituals. This is yet another inconsistency that would suggest to me that the alleged 10 babies never existed.

As it currently stands there is one rabbit that has not been returned. We hope that there is at least one decent person involved in “Rabbit Advocates” who is actually interested in the well being and protection of an innocent creature.

Tags: ,
Posted in News | 5 Comments »



2012: The Year of Walt

December 31st, 2011

This past month I have been deeply touched by stories that have flooded my news feed and listserves about the life and tragic death of animal advocate Walt Rave. I immediately found myself drawn to Walt’s story because of the veracity with which he lived and his constant willingness to illustrate his passion – regardless of how it would be perceived.

A Vietnam Vet, after returning Walt dedicated his life to advocating for other animal species and the planet. This is important to note as Vietnam veterans and anti-war organizers play a vital, and largely unreported, role in the development of the North American animal rights movement.

Although painted largely as a misanthrope (which is absurd), Walt also ran a DIY tool service which made tools available to people in his community for no cost. His ideas were provocative and radical, but they were driven by a deep conviction – we are all connected in this world.

Visited by friends in the hospital the first question Walt asked was about his cats – some believe his injuries were so severe because he was intent on getting his six cats out of the fire that consumed his house.

This movement lacks historians and it also lacks longevity. Walt Rave brought a resolute conviction and perspective that was rare to this movement and his influence can be charted in everything from the initial development of some of North America’s largest animal advocacy groups to a mountain of grassroots initiatives. Although I never had the pleasure of meeting Walt I want to carry Walt’s memory into the new year and have it shape our actions. I want to see an influx of rescued animals named Walt, I want to see a vibrant movement full of people who are unafraid to speak truth and I want to see a movement of people who honour and respect our history.

Here is to 2012. The year of Walt.

xo,
Dylan

Tags: , ,
Posted in News | 2 Comments »



Seal Hunt Update: China – “Unsealing the Deal”

December 18th, 2011

I’ve written extensively about the EU Seal Hunt Ban on this site and also covered moves by the Canadian Government to shore up this industry outside of the EU. Almost a year ago I wrote some commentary on the supposed development of Chinese markets for Canadian Seal Products. At the time of that announcement, the Canadian Government and the Seal Industry wrote of the new partnership as an industry savior. In line with Government/Industry press constructions that we have already covered – this has largely turned out to be bogus. As we mentioned in the post at the start of this year, activists on the ground in China had already mobilized in resistance against this “dump” of seal products. However, the story “Unsealing the Deal” that broke in China Daily on December 6th, 2011 paints a fuller picture. Resistance and outrage has been widespread – but so much more than previously thought. I would encourage people to read the whole story, but important points are highlighted below. Most importantly, Chinese people know that they will most likely decide the fate of the industry.

“It’s a trend that industries involved in animal cruelty look toward China’s massive market potential as their sales slump elsewhere,” Zhang says.

The Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail quotes seal-oil supplement manufacturer DPA Industries’ chairman Wayne MacKinnon as saying, “The Chinese eat anything. And they simply don’t understand why you would put one animal above another.”

Other foreign reports say the Chinese have no regard for animal welfare and no relevant legislation.

“Because of prejudice, they believe most Chinese don’t care about animals and eat anything,” Zhang says.

“But they’re perfectly wrong.”

…

“Now, you have the opportunity to terminate the massacre of seal pups in Canada. You are at a crossroads to open to the dying cruel industry, or stand with other countries to ban the seal products.”

…


HIS’ China policy consultant Li Jianqiang said the Canadian government had “rushed” to release the “good news” about the trade deal with China to enable politicians to win votes.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »



Not Abolitionists….Not Liberationists

May 2nd, 2011

In the comments and responses to the commentary I posted Abolitionist History 101: Animal Abolition and Racism it became clear that some people didn’t know how to place the critique. Was I against the use of the term or against a specific use of the term? Am I in favor of another term or approach? There is a piece of commentary that I wrote last year in response to the website Negotiation is Over’s post “Not Abolitionists….We’re Liberationists” that I think may provide more context. I decided against posting it at the time as I felt it would have been out of context on the site (commentary like this is still somewhat out of place here) and also because I didn’t want my site to end up joining this unending shouting match that has very little impact on praxis. Since I decided to carry this critique on, give public presentations on the topic and post commentary I am more intent now on people knowing exactly where I stand on this issue so as not to confuse which “camp” I reside in.

Abolitionist Memory: The Race for Language

As “camps” in the Animal Rights community continue to fragment, the race to place historical context on social justice movements, in order to legitimize tactics, is intensifying. This process is nothing new to social justice movements, nor to animal rights, however, the race to own “abolitionism” is currently gaining speed. Some are banking on its use as a key to prizing one camps tactics over another. I would argue that not only does a study of that movement caution against that, I would also argue that most empowering narrative is satisfies neither camps.

Allusions to slavery, the civil rights era, and abolitionism have played a large role in the narrative of the animal rights movement. Unfortunately, their has always been a self serving use and abuse of what that movement stood for, a prizing of utility for one’s own sake. Works like the Marjorie Speigel’s “The Dreaded Comparison,” are the exception to this rule, however, it is not uncommon to read literature from elements of the animal rights movement that gloss over the history of that movement. They prize certain intellectual figures (mostly out of context) while completely ignoring other elements, namely Harriet Tubman, John Brown, Nat Turner, The Underground Railroad, etc. The motivation is clear, if the goal is to blur the line between property damage and violence, it makes no sense to mention a previous struggle for social justice, wherein we have now legitimized property damage and actually celebrated its actors. A simple search of Gary Francione’s website, The Abolitionist Approach, will return absolutely no results for any of the names mentioned above. However, slavery and allusions to abolition will abound. How can a movement co-opt a term without understanding the movement that term alludes to? Much of the focus of the dogmatic pacifist element of the AR movement has been to substitute the narrative of Martin Luther King Jr. for the more troubling abolitionist history. A pacifist who preaches non violence is of much more utility to a movement of pacifists, even though this narrative also complicates this camps assertion that property status MUST first be the initial focus and confuses and conflates the notion of the post racialist society (which also flies the face of contemporary critiques and understandings of slavery and the prison industrial complex). This leaves us at an impasse. Either we follow the logic that the fight MUST first be with the status of animals as property, and correctly untie the history of the 19th Century Abolitionist movement, with its wide range of actors and tactics OR we completely silence that narrative and instead use one which serves a very specific ideological position, but also fundamentally cannot come to terms with the history of the term of which it alludes to. Although whatever I write will certainly not do away with the dogmatic pacifistic “camp,” it seems that the camp either has no history, or it has no camp. The two cannot be reconciled.

As the more militant and radical faction continues to combat the presence of the dogmatic pacifist camps, this race for context and utility has intensified. A recent editorial statement from the Negotiation is Over Collective, started with the introduction,

“The term “abolitionist,” or “abolitionism,” as used within our community, bears no resemblance to the noble & militant 19th century movement. The word has been co-opted & castrated and the abolitionists are standing proudly in their pink aprons, armed with spatulas, baking cupcakes in their white elitist bubble. THAT’S ABOLITION? I wonder what Frederick Douglass would think. Frankly, we find it embarrassing when vegans refer to themselves using the “A” word. It has been systematically beaten into submission and its tattered and broken body remains on life support.  We are euthanizing the word and laying it to rest.”

As an attempt to silence the dogmatic pacifist communities use of the term, the militant and radical faction, which until recently still promoted its use of the term “radical abolitionism,” has instead decided to use the history for convenience, but scrap the word. Understandably, very persistent attempts by Gary Francionne and the dogmatic pacifist camp in recent years to equate veganism=animal rights=pacifism=abolitionism have clouded an understanding and negated meaning. This has also signaled that the first race, the race to own the term itself, was a victory for the dogmatic pacifist camp. What is troubling here, in alluding to the anti slavery movement and more specifically Frederick Douglass, is that NIO is using this history as a powder keg. To question what Frederick Douglass would think of the movement, the same week in which the NIO organized an extremely uncoordinated, misguided and mindless “take it to the streets” campaign, is laughable. Douglass was a keen observer of tactics and strategy who cautioned John Brown numerous times about his planned actions and actually withdrew his support over concerns that John Brown’s plans were suicidal and counter productive. Furthermore, so much of their use of this history borderlines on the absurd. The use of Douglass is ironic as Douglass supported the state and supported the Constitution as his site of contention against slavery. Garrisonian Non-Resistors are a direct lineage to a critique of the state, which influences NIO members like Steve Best and which is something that was actually highlighted in NIO’s use of the term “Radical Abolitionism.” However, it’s use was problematic theoretically, and scrapped, because it’s original use was placed onto abolitionists who supported political non resistance, a theory that was critical of violence and who’s ideas were grounded in a belief in God.

When they appropriate this history it becomes absurd as they clearly have no real understanding of what they are presenting. What is the state of this movement if two of the most visible camps can so willfully disregard context to promote their own rigid stance? How is this “Liberation” title supposed to be valid if this new camp refuses to deal with this history? How can we talk about “Liberation” while using language that is misogynistic and oppressive (i.e. why would an animal liberation group ever think it ok to “euthanize” an idea or history)?

When pressed, both camps will argue they will support unity, with Francione accepting unity as being post-acceptance of dogmatic pacifism and NIO only supporting an insular community of radical and militant (internet) activists. The cracks aren’t hard to find. As I mentioned above, the recent Editorial Statement is littered with sexist language, mocking the dogmatic pacifist community as feminine, with their “pink aprons,” and “vegan cupcakes.” If the real intention is, ““Working together … through a diversity of critiques and tactics that mobilize different communities…” then why promote sexist language, and why take a shot at baketivism. This self serving utility has to be called into question. It will not end, but the narratives themselves have to be refined if their utility is actually going to make a difference in the larger context of social justice. There will always be Garrisons, there will always be Douglass’s, and there will always be Harriet Tubman’s along with a plethora of other viewpoints and perspectives. Abolitionism is not a dirty word, nor is it a word that can or should be owned, or guarded rigidly. Recognizing the powerful message of the movement which we allude to, but never acknowledge, would certainly held build bridges and check the wonton use of self serving theories of tactics and strategy.

Tags: ,
Posted in News | 12 Comments »



Abolitionist History 101: Animal Abolition and Racism.

April 21st, 2011

Those who know me personally know that I am interested not only in the abolition of non human animal slavery in and of itself, but also in the extension, and unfortunate appropriation, of the anti-slavery movement, the movement to abolish human slavery. Certain actors within the animal abolition movement have intentionally disregarded that history in favor of presenting their “approach” as new or exceptional. It is anything but. The dissemination of these ideas have spread wide and far, predominately among white, male abolitionist’s, to the point where they have been codified and reproduced without any interest or framework to expand upon that analysis to incorporate the history of the movement who’s term we conveniently use. There is no investigation and can be no investigation, of the way in which our uncritical use of the term refuses an analysis of white normativity, the perpetuation of the “post-racialist” society, or power structures, institutions and interpersonal relationships which continue to exist post-1865.

Thought experiment: What if this movement had decided to use the name of a different struggle without any context. What if the appropriation was that of the “Black Panther” instead of “Abolitionist.” Would it be recognized as an offensive cultural appropriation? Of course it would. How then can we talk around and appropriate the term “Abolitionist” while we still refuse to expand our critique to the movement and people we siphon our power from?

Similarly, this movement has also gone out of its way to intentionally disregard, ignore and dismiss critical thinking that also finds power out of this history. In all of my searches you will be lucky to find 1 so-called animal abolitionist out of a 1000 who align themselves with a critique of the prison industrial complex or are aware of such writers as W. E. B. Dubois or the work of Angela Davis. For a movement that pays lip service to intersectionality and oppression this is absurd. Not only do we refuse to investigate that history, we defiantly refuse to investigate other contemporary uses. It is the animal “abolitionist approach” or nothing.

This is prioritization in action and I am sick and tired of it. If you wish to call yourself an “abolitionist” at least have some fucking concept of what that even means, why the term has power, and how the use of that term makes you complicit in recognizing not only the struggle of enslaved non human animals, but also the enslavement AND continued enslavement of criminalized human populations.

Below is a framework for accountability. It is a starting point. If you want to use this term, know its power. If you refuse to do so, then be prepared to be called out for perpetuating oppression in the service of theory. This format is an open insult as it would be an assignment that a high school student studying these movements should be able to fill out. I challenge Gary Francione and any others who call themselves Abolitionists to chart their responses. For those sincerely looking for resources in order to further their understanding, please comment below.

What does Abolitionism Mean?

Name 5 Abolitionists:

Name 10 Black Abolitionists:

What is Non-Resistance?

What was the Underground Railroad?

What was the concept of No-Organization?

What was Moral Suasion?

What is the Prison Industrial Complex?

What is White Washing?

What is White Normativity?

Define “Appropriation”?

Name at least 1 use of the term “abolitionist” by the animal rights movement prior to 1990.

Who was Amos Alcott?

Tags: ,
Posted in News | 26 Comments »



Interview with Glenn Gaetz (Canada Revenue Agency: The Promotion of Animal Welfare and Charitable Registration)

March 14th, 2011

It was a post from Glenn where I first eyed the CRA Promotion of Animal Welfare and Charitable Registration. My mind was immediately blown and I have found myself in the “overly-paranoid” group since. Seeing as Glenn has been through the guidelines previously, I thought it would be good to have him set a couple of things straight for us. For people looking for more commentary and context; Lesley Fox’s “Charity Guidelines Make It Tough For Animal Groups To Change Law In Canada,” Donald Cameron’s “How Ottawa Stifles Animal Activists,” and Merrit Clifton’s “Canada Revenue Agency Moves To Muzzle Animal Charities” are all good sources. It is my sincere hope that people talk publicly about this issue even though I know it has caused some anger and frustration and opened some old wounds. It is not very often that Canadian activists get to have a discussion on tactics and effectiveness that is specific to this country. Also, do not forget that public comment can still be submitted to the CRA until March 31, 2011! The fact that the CRA has posted an update clarifying the proposed guidance is already a great testament to the amount of people who have written in.

I would also suggest people taking a look at the great work that Glenn and all of the folks at Liberation B.C. are doing, and also supporting his newest venture, an all vegan shoe store in Vancouver B.C. called Nice Shoes.


Ever since the Canada Revenue Agency posted their Consultation on proposed guidance for The Promotion of Animal Welfare and Charitable Registration for comment on Feb 5th I have witnessed a broad spectrum of responses; some feel it has no teeth, some are angered by the “paranoia” surrounding it’s impact, others are sincerely cautious of its potential impact and precedence while others point to this as definitive proof that charitable status is more of a hinderance than anything else. What is your reaction to the proposed guidelines?

Let me begin by addressing a slight misconception about the guidance document that I’ve been noticing. It seems as if many people are seeing the draft guidance document as a new set of regulations that will somehow change the charitable rules for animal advocacy or protection groups. But this document is really just an effort by Canada Revenue to present guidance to animal protection groups as to whether or not their activities would be considered charitable under the current regulations. As far as I know, they are not considering any changes to the current regulations. They are not changing the laws to take charitable status away from anyone who already has it. No organizations charitable status is under threat (any more than it has been, of course).

So, to answer your question, I’ve really found the document to be useful. Canada’s charity laws are murky at best, and unbelievably obscure and even contradictory at worst. This document at least clarifies many of the points that prevent many animal protection groups (especially animal rights, anti-animal testing, vegan advocacy, etc) from becoming tax-exempt charities. The document also highlights just how much our charity laws protect the status quo.

Organizations working to change the system are severely limited in how “hard” their advocacy work can be. This isn’t limited to animal protection – all groups are limited in how much advocacy work they can do as a charity.

Animal protection groups face the additional barrier of not being able to advocate solely for animals (especially when human interests are opposed to the animal interests).

I tend to fall into the camp that charitable status is a hindrance, but not entirely. If you are smart and know the regulations really well and can handle auditors well, then you may be able to walk the charitable tightrope. For most animal protection groups, the time and effort involved in pursuing charitable status is just not an effective use of those resources. And, if you really want to advocate for animals full-time, then it’s definitely a hindrance. I think this is especially the case for grassroots groups.

I wouldn’t downplay the advantages of becoming a charity, though. Charities have access to more grants and more government resources than regular non-profits.


I feel like this issue has opened up a bit of a sore between animal advocacy groups that have charitable status and those who do not. I am wondering if you have noticed this as well and if you think this was an intended consequence?

Maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. I’m not really sure. I know that most everything opens up a sore between one set of animals advocacy groups and another. I don’t know if it would have been intended, but my inclination is to assume that CRA has posted this guidance document to save themselves some time. They must have to deal with so many groups applying for charitable status all the time, and so many questions about eligibility, that probably take up a decent amount of time.

I covered the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act throughly on this site and I definitely see sections of these guidelines being influenced by that legislation, most notably the section on terrorism. I see a lot of people in Canada glossing over that section as they assume they don’t associate with terrorists, or the constructed image of the Islamic Terrorist, without recognizing that people in the United States are currently being charged with terrorism for freedom of speech cases (AETA 4, SHAC 7, etc.) As someone who is a member of numerous animal advocacy groups with chartible status, but also someone who publicly supports and raises funds for those charged with terrorism in the United States, I see this as a massive issue. Just as the AETA used the label of “terrorism” to push the militant animal rights movement to the fringe and build separation between that and the above ground mainstream advocacy movement, I see these proposed guidelines pushing for the same effect here.

Again, the CRA document is really just an explanation of the current CRA regulations as applied to animal protection groups, not a new set of laws. Efforts in the US to label animal activists as terrorists have progressed much, much further than they have in Canada. We definitely have to be concerned with any language that limits resources “indirectly” made available to someone who engages in or supports terrorist activities (“Under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act and the Income Tax Act, a charity’s status may be revoked if it makes its resources available, directly or indirectly, to any individual or group that engages in or supports terrorist activities”). Anti-terrorist rhetoric has not reached the same level in Canada as it has in the US, but it’s definitely something to be cautious of.

The terrorist issue applies to all charitable organizations, animal or not, so charities really have to be careful about who they support and collaborate with. I don’t know if that has been tested in Canadian court yet, but as far as I know, no animal group, including SHAC, has yet been officially labelled as “terrorist” in Canada.

Some who have seen this legislation feel as though any attempt to enforce it could be easily defeated on the grounds that animal advocacy is charitable and beneficial to humans. Is this approach nieve though as the guidelines are based upon legal precedent, precedent which we currently don’t have even if we have a wealth of logic and reason on our side.

I think you are correct that this view is incorrect, although it would be nice if it were true. In Canada, common-law (precedent set by the courts) does determine how the law is interpreted. Once a court rules a certain way, subsequent tests of that same law are bound to be ruled in accord with the original precedent.

The example CRA uses is animal testing. Many years ago animal testing was ruled to be beneficial to humans, therefore groups that are formed around the issue of opposing animal testing would be ruled to not be charitable because they would be opposed to human benefit.

To challenge the animal testing ruling, someone would have to find a way to prove that the cost to humans outweighs the benefits, which would be a challenge, to say the least.

Animal exploitation industries do benefit large numbers of humans in terms of jobs, if nothing else. To say that animal advocacy can be seen as beneficial to humans is incorrect – especially when you consider that some groups of humans benefit more from exploiting animals than others, and that the costs to humans are not easily weighed.

Take the Canadian seal hunt for example. Some humans definitely benefit from it, while very few humans face any costs from it. Only the seals themselves bear the brunt of the cost.

I think this is a real weakness of our charity laws. Charities should be able to advocate for animal protection, even if it means humans will not be able to benefit from those animals. It ties charities too closely to government and social structures, basically making charitable work an extension of the status quo. Not being able to benefit is quite a bit different than an actual cost.

Some people point to French laws for Charity Advocacy as an example to follow. Can you tell us a bit more about them?

I know very little about France’s regulations, but I do know that charities in France have much greater freedom in terms of advocacy work, and they can actually be involved in political activities.

The US system actually seems to work pretty well too. They used to have a system that was very much like ours, but they changed in 1976. Now more groups are able to become “charitable” and their activities are less limited than they are here.

Most of my knowledge is around advocacy by charities, rather than the actual application of animal advocacy. However, I do know that many groups considered charitable in the US would not be able to get charitable status in Canada. PETA, Mercy for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, Vegan Outreach – there’s a slim to zero chance that any of them could ever get charitable status here.

What do you see as the way forward for the animal advocacy movement in Canada?

Mostly, I’d say be willing to support animal protection groups that do work you like even if they are not able to give you a tax receipt.

If we could find more ways to work together and pool our resources we might be able to grow stronger. Canada already has a much smaller amount of donations available than the US (we’re about 1/10th the size), so using the US as a model for building organizations is probably not the best idea.

Lamenting the fact that there are big organizations working in the US but not here in Canada really doesn’t do any good. If the system is stacked against us, we need to get creative, start overlooking slight philosophical differences, support each other, and build a different network of animal activists that can exist without the support of charitable donations or grants. I’ve seen organizations develop into well-funded non-profits without charitable status – even with offices and paid staff. So it is possible. It just takes work.

And, definitely challenge the current charity system. Send comments to CRA about the draft guidance supporting a real change in the way the law works and write to your MP and ask them to work on this issue. Canada, even more than the US, is a democracy, and the system can change.

Tags: ,
Posted in News | 2 Comments »



Seal Hunt Update: China.

January 24th, 2011

I have been meaning to write commentary on the recent trade agreement over seal products between China and Canada but felt an added urgency this past weekend. Myself and others travelled down to Buffalo to participate in a fur demo and every single time any of us mentioned that we were from Canada the first question from the mouths of other demonstrators was, “What is going on with the seal hunt?” It was strange to see people who are so close to us geographically identify the issue as a “Canadian” issue and it was the first time that I somehow felt responsibility for a national identity in regards to animal exploitation. In the end though, what I told them and what I will write here is I think a realistic and optimistic view of a brutal industry. Some saw the recent trade agreement in a negative light, I think it’s a marriage that is based upon so many externals that it will be nearly impossible to hold.

First, the trade agreement with China symbolizes that the Canadian Government as well as the Fur/Seal Industry has given up on the hopes of reversing the EU Seal Product Ban. That means two of the worlds largest economies, the United States and the European Union, refuse to deal in seal products. In total this means the market has shrunk, and continues to shrink, considerably.

There is another thing which this deal signals, and that is the move towards “seal meat.” Asian countries currently hold the market for seal meat products and this deal reflects the fact that this industry is now going to have re-sell itself and centre on a less lucrative product. Seal meat markets are considerably lower than fashion markets. Not only has the market completely shrunk, but now the ceiling selling price will come down as well. This means more subsidies, which are already unpopular and it also means trying to peddle a product that the vast majority of Canadians wouldn’t eat. (The Government has been doing press stunts for the last couple of years in order to push seal meat as a delicacy, so far to no avail.)

The deal is also significant in that in further constricts our countries ability to ban/criticize products come back across from China and into Canada. As it pertains to animal enterprise, the first thing that comes to mind is the cat/dog fur trade. Labeling laws have just recently been passed in the United States and there is significant pressure to pass similar laws in Canada. This creates a massive problem. With little to no market we are dependent upon the Chinese market in order to keep the seal hunt on life support, any disruption in trade over animal products be it cat/dog/shark, etc. (or concerns over human rights) will significantly strain our ability to continue that. What does this mean for the Government? It means they have placed their support behind an industry that needs subsidies to survive, an industry that is inherently cruel, an industry that the majority of Canadians oppose, an industry which hinges on our importation of cat and dog fur and an industry that now also must re-invent its “product” with a lower selling point.

For activists what does this mean? All of these externals, as they add up, create more leverage points for those who protest the seal hunt. With such reliance on the Chinese Market, symbolic legislation like the Truth in Labeling, could potentially land the death blow. Although the majority of Canadians oppose the Seal Hunt, a much larger number oppose the sale of cat and dog fur. Speciesism, the ascription of different worth based upon species membership, could ironically be the mirror, which when held up, proves too hideous for Canadians to further tolerate.

Optimism is at a high when Chinese Animal Rights groups are already actively working against this “dump.” An impressive press campaign met the announcement and it illustrates the massive problem for those who are going to have to try to create a demand for this product out of thin air.

Another source of optimism is China’s recent attempts to appear animal-friendly, banning animal circuses and cracking down upon state run zoos. Will China buckle under the same moral outrage that the EU eventually caved to? Typically most would balk at the suggestion that China would listen to animal advocacy groups, however, the ironic timing of these announcements would suggest otherwise.

For those on the ground, if you have a Conservative MP in your riding then please re-double your efforts. Write/Call them and voice your concerns. If they don’t want to enter into a dialogue then start crafting plans to protest their offices and start press campaigns to draw light to this issue. Talk about their unwillingness to listen to their constituency, talk about the trade in cat and dog fur, talk about subsidies. Whatever you do, don’t be silent about the issue! With each move over the past year the Canadian Government has left itself more and more vulnerable in it’s defense of this industry. Keep it up!

xo,
Dylan

Tags: ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »



The Vegan Police – 2010 in Review.

January 1st, 2011

So we did the Donut Awards and that was a huge hit, but we haven’t talked about this site in review yet. As always, stress the positives, learn from the negatives. Mix of editorial picks and statistics!

Jan 25th 2010 (ish) – This site was born. Previous to this we were radio show/podcast with a facebook site as a central location. Considering we had been kicked off of the radio before (it happened again later on this year) and I had my personal facebook (and all pages) deleted because of a campaign, I was pretty intent on having a site to work as a central location away from all the nonsense. Massive thank you’s go out to our dear friend Karol, who put a ton of time into the site and was always quick to help if there was ever an issue. I strongly suggest people using Karol for their web design needs!

Our Most Downloaded Podcast: Will Potter – Jan 13th, 2010. I still re listen to this interview from time to time and really enjoy it. It was informative, but light hearted and I think I like it most because Will and I both feel that its paramount that people stay active and hopeful. Nod also has goes out to Anthony Nocella, Peter Young, Josh Hooten, Adam Gnade, Terry Romero and also our very last radio show with John Sakars and Melissa and Ally from the Local High School AR group SCAR. Very happy to end on that high note.

Best Contributed Piece: Tara Pelette – Interview with Ross Corder (Vegan Eats). This is tough because I really really enjoyed Rasha Taha’s Vegan In: Lebanon series and was really sad when it ended. That said, Tara made my interview/journalism skills look childish (I admit they are, she just highlighted it with a really really great interview). I think the future is very bright for Tara in her journalist career and I hope she keeps writing for the site! P.S. We are always looking for writers/contributions/guest blogs.

Top Story on the Site: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The Vegan Police. This actually broke my heart. I knew I didn’t have ownership over the term, no one does, but the fact that my semi-serious activist-media outlet was going to be forever tied to a shitty pop hollywood venture made me very angry! If anyone is paying attention, there will most likely be a spin-off, at which point I will sit back and wait for whatever production company to buy this domain for a couple hundred thousand dollars which I will then turn into Sanctuary. (I wish!). In the end this story got the most hits and brought the most non-vegans to the site, which is a blessing in disguise and some sort of consolation I guess.

Funniest Interview of the Year: Chris Colohan. Everyone loves it when people rip into crust punk trust fund kids. Dan Shannon’s response to the classic tofu vs. tempeh vs. seitan questions also ranks pretty high. Also, Terry Romero talking about zombies and wrestling is pretty funny too.

Best News Break of the Year: Tie Ohio Conklin Dairy Arrest / EU Seal Hunt Ban. I still remember the morning I woke up to a press release from the Mayor of Plain City, Ohio stating that an arrest had been made at the farm. One local source managed to get it up before me but no AR source had it first. My shitty little site broke news! In the end it wasn’t a story to be happy about. The industry offered up a sacrifice and moved on. As far as a news story having the most impact on me personally this year, this story and its trajectory made me drastically re-think the effectiveness of criminalizing behaviors towards animals when an industry remains of abuse remains in tact. The second story, the EU Seal Hunt Ban, or the supposed drop of the EU Seal Hunt Ban, was lesson in weirdo government journalism. Trying to force the hand of the EU, the Canadian Government, alongside the Fur and Seal Industries and using Inuit and Aboriginal Peoples as a shield, attempted to run a truimphant nation wide story about the repeal of the EU Seal Hunt Ban. Journalists love a story that is pre-written. Unfortunately, EVERYONE bought the story wholesale even though it contained absolutely no sources from within the EU itself. In the end the Ban stand intact and is enforced in full, unfortunately, most Canadian news outlets didn’t run that story.

Local Story of the Year: Happy Rolphs. I wrote about it extensively. The issue is still not resolved, however, the pressure on the City to move towards third party Sanctuary guidelines is still on. If you are a fan of angry commentary, this one is for you!

Favorite Interview of the Year: Billy Ray Boyd. Billy provided more hope for “abolitionism” in that interview than I saw anywhere else this year. I think of all interviews I did this year his was the one I was happiest to post.

I want to thank everyone who took the time to support us this year, whether that was coming out to/promoting an event, contributing to the site, reposting links, leaving comments, etc. We didn’t really know what to expect when the site was first launched, but after almost a year I can say we are very happy with the response we have gotten back. Here’s to all of the possibilities of 2011!

xo,
Dylan

    Resolutions

We promise to edit more
We promise more content and more fundraisers
We promise more stories and viewpoints from more diverse backgrounds and perspectives.
We promise to try and cus’ less.

Tags: ,
Posted in News | No Comments »



« Older Entries