Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
In Defense of the Non-Humans First Declaration
Commentary on a controversial text
I'd like to take a moment to defend the Non-Humans First Declaration, a text that has become something of a boogeyman amongst intersectional animalists. But first, let me be clear about what I'm not doing. I'm not defending the signatories, social media activity associated with the declaration, or anything ancillary to the text itself. This isn't necessarily meant as a condemnation of these. Rather, I want to limit the scope of my argument.
As mentioned, the declaration has amassed many critics. For instance, while I don't have the work in front of me, I believe in "The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century," Steven Best described the text as fascist. Fascism is one of those words slung around the left with such frequency it has lost nearly all meaning. And, as much as I respect Best, I suspect his opposition to the declaration might be personal, rather than political, given a noted signatory is a former comrade, against whom he was forced to take out a restraining order. This would be, of course, understandable on Best's part, considering what he has gone through, and I wish him a speedy recovery.
In a 2013 article for the Vegan Feminist Network, Syl took issue with the declaration's approach, arguing signatories "don’t seem to realize that over time, we will lose people from the movement since women, people of color, homosexuals, disabled people, etc will run the hell away." Corey Wrenn, writing for the Academic Abolitionist Vegan that same year, stated, "Dismissing the importance of intersectionality, the declaration promotes, intentionally or not, what equates to misogyny and white supremacy apologism. It is a position that I argue constitutes harm on vulnerable humans and reflects the privileged space occupied by many anti-speciesist organizers."
I'd like to address such criticism with a close analysis of the text itself. I know my defense of the declaration will open me up to various accusations. I only hope those who disagree restrict their attacks to my argument, rather than to who I am as a person. Ad-hominem attacks create an atmosphere in which learning, growth, and debate necessary for the health of our movement, are impossible. With that in mind, and doing my best to observe my own dictum, let's begin.
In what I believe is the first section animalists might find controversial, the declaration states, "Whereas; non-human animals are in a situation of immediate emergency and global holocaust with no human crises even coming close to its scale." Some might quibble with the use of the word 'holocaust.' But as I've argued elsewhere, all movements compare themselves to struggles of time past, both to confer legitimacy on themselves and establish the urgency of their cause.
For instance, the celebrated Black writer, James Baldwin, describing government repression against the Black Panthers, said, “Now, exactly like the Germans at the time of the Third Reich, though innocent men are being harassed, jailed, and murdered, in all the Northern cities, the citizens know nothing, and wish to know nothing, of what is happening around them.” A quick internet search reveals Baldwin made such analogies frequently. Many readers, I believe, might find such comparisons provocative or inaccurate, but I doubt they're outraged by them. It’s only when human suffering is compared to animal suffering these analogies become truly objectionable. And that's speciesism.
As to whether animal suffering is of a greater scale than human suffering, as the declaration suggests, this seems inarguable to me. Over 65 billion land animals are slaughtered every year, according to Farm Animal Rights Movement. To put that in a bit of perspective, the Population Reference Bureau estimates only 107 billion humans have ever lived. So, of course, animal suffering is infinitely greater than its human equivalent. Some may ask why this matters, wondering if animals really need to compete in what's often called the "Oppression Olympics." I'm sympathetic to this line of questioning. But the truth is the scale of violence against animals must be clearly stated in a society which, even amongst self-described leftists, dismisses animalism as an eccentric, bourgeois concern, that, at best, can be seen to after capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy are overthrown.
The declaration continues, stating, "Whereas; we recognise our role as animal rights activists as being to directly advocate for non-human animals giving their interests a voice (as they have none in human society), rather than to represent our own ideologies and interests." Presumably, the only portion of this with which animalists might disagree is the admonition not to represent one's own interests. First of all, it has to be pointed out no one is going to stop representing their own interests based on what is said in the declaration. It's not legally binding or anything. So, to me, it's suggesting that, say, the animalist worker devote his time to confronting human supremacy, rather than his own exploitation by capitalists. The worker is, of course, free to do whatever he chooses. As the declaration repeatedly states — and as should be assumed, given the fact it's written by random people on the internet, not the government — these are principles voluntarily agreed to.
In her article, Syl suggested activism was not a zero-sum game, and thus there is no need to prioritize one struggle over another. I've made similar statements in the past. But the truth is, we are mortal beings with limited time on this earth. Time spent by the animalist worker, rallying against his capitalist exploiters, is time taken away from efforts aimed at defeating human supremacy. That's the reality, sad as it is. And while surely capitalism and human supremacy are connected, some efforts more directly fight one than the other. Conscious or not, some sort of prioritization of struggles must take place. And to me, that's what the Non-Human First Declaration is. It states the signatories prioritize the goals of the animalist movement above all other political objectives.
In perhaps the most controversial statement of the text, the declaration states, "No one should be excluded from participation in animal rights activities based on their views on human issues. The non-human animals are in a situation of immediate emergency and need all the help they can get! Furthermore, the women’s rights, anti-racism, etc. movements have no requirement that participants reject species oppression and nor should the animal movement demand the adherence to human rights positions while animals are still in a state of emergency." Such a big-tent approach is fairly common on other movements. For instance, one must assume the National Abortion Rights Action League has no official position on the nature of capitalism. Were it to insist all of its members be socialists, the group would obviously be smaller and less effective.
Exploring this point in more depth, I've used the example of anti-war movement in the United States of the 1960s and 1970s. According to socialist Peter Camejo, there were two general strategies amongst peace groups of that era. One was represented in the Student Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (SMC), and the other in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Camejo belonged to the former organization, which — according to Michael Steven Smith and Paul Leblanc, writing in the International Socialist Review — ultimately served as the “backbone of the campus antiwar efforts.” For his part, Camejo credited SMC success to its big-tent approach.
“The SMC didn’t require that its members hold any particular beliefs outside of wanting the United States to immediately withdraw from Vietnam,” Camejo said. “The [Socialist Workers Party] understood that the development of a genuinely united mass movement against the war was of crucial importance and that people didn’t have to agree on the nature of capitalism, the two-party system, or other issues in order to work together to demonstrate against the war.” In contrast, SDS insisted participants in their anti-war efforts agree on multiple issues, and as a result their demonstrations were much smaller.
To me, the conclusions Camejo draws here feel intuitive, and how they would apply to animalist campaigns seems obvious. The fewer ideological demands one applies to potential members or participants, the larger your base of support will be. The more ideological demands one applies to potential members or participants, the smaller your base of support will be. In practice, this suggests we should support big-tent animalist groups, that don’t have an official position on new welfarism or abolitionism, let alone trigger warnings and Palestinian resistance. However, as the declaration states, "every rule has its exceptions."
The text continues, but I think, for the most part, it restates already-mentioned principles, the objections to which I've addressed. In conclusion, I believe the Non-Humans First Declaration has been unfairly demonized. While I will not speak to criticism of the signatories or social-media activity associated with the text, I do support the declaration itself. I look forward to what I hope is a constructive dialogue on the issue, free from personal attacks on both sides.
As mentioned, the declaration has amassed many critics. For instance, while I don't have the work in front of me, I believe in "The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century," Steven Best described the text as fascist. Fascism is one of those words slung around the left with such frequency it has lost nearly all meaning. And, as much as I respect Best, I suspect his opposition to the declaration might be personal, rather than political, given a noted signatory is a former comrade, against whom he was forced to take out a restraining order. This would be, of course, understandable on Best's part, considering what he has gone through, and I wish him a speedy recovery.
In a 2013 article for the Vegan Feminist Network, Syl took issue with the declaration's approach, arguing signatories "don’t seem to realize that over time, we will lose people from the movement since women, people of color, homosexuals, disabled people, etc will run the hell away." Corey Wrenn, writing for the Academic Abolitionist Vegan that same year, stated, "Dismissing the importance of intersectionality, the declaration promotes, intentionally or not, what equates to misogyny and white supremacy apologism. It is a position that I argue constitutes harm on vulnerable humans and reflects the privileged space occupied by many anti-speciesist organizers."
I'd like to address such criticism with a close analysis of the text itself. I know my defense of the declaration will open me up to various accusations. I only hope those who disagree restrict their attacks to my argument, rather than to who I am as a person. Ad-hominem attacks create an atmosphere in which learning, growth, and debate necessary for the health of our movement, are impossible. With that in mind, and doing my best to observe my own dictum, let's begin.
In what I believe is the first section animalists might find controversial, the declaration states, "Whereas; non-human animals are in a situation of immediate emergency and global holocaust with no human crises even coming close to its scale." Some might quibble with the use of the word 'holocaust.' But as I've argued elsewhere, all movements compare themselves to struggles of time past, both to confer legitimacy on themselves and establish the urgency of their cause.
For instance, the celebrated Black writer, James Baldwin, describing government repression against the Black Panthers, said, “Now, exactly like the Germans at the time of the Third Reich, though innocent men are being harassed, jailed, and murdered, in all the Northern cities, the citizens know nothing, and wish to know nothing, of what is happening around them.” A quick internet search reveals Baldwin made such analogies frequently. Many readers, I believe, might find such comparisons provocative or inaccurate, but I doubt they're outraged by them. It’s only when human suffering is compared to animal suffering these analogies become truly objectionable. And that's speciesism.
As to whether animal suffering is of a greater scale than human suffering, as the declaration suggests, this seems inarguable to me. Over 65 billion land animals are slaughtered every year, according to Farm Animal Rights Movement. To put that in a bit of perspective, the Population Reference Bureau estimates only 107 billion humans have ever lived. So, of course, animal suffering is infinitely greater than its human equivalent. Some may ask why this matters, wondering if animals really need to compete in what's often called the "Oppression Olympics." I'm sympathetic to this line of questioning. But the truth is the scale of violence against animals must be clearly stated in a society which, even amongst self-described leftists, dismisses animalism as an eccentric, bourgeois concern, that, at best, can be seen to after capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy are overthrown.
The declaration continues, stating, "Whereas; we recognise our role as animal rights activists as being to directly advocate for non-human animals giving their interests a voice (as they have none in human society), rather than to represent our own ideologies and interests." Presumably, the only portion of this with which animalists might disagree is the admonition not to represent one's own interests. First of all, it has to be pointed out no one is going to stop representing their own interests based on what is said in the declaration. It's not legally binding or anything. So, to me, it's suggesting that, say, the animalist worker devote his time to confronting human supremacy, rather than his own exploitation by capitalists. The worker is, of course, free to do whatever he chooses. As the declaration repeatedly states — and as should be assumed, given the fact it's written by random people on the internet, not the government — these are principles voluntarily agreed to.
In her article, Syl suggested activism was not a zero-sum game, and thus there is no need to prioritize one struggle over another. I've made similar statements in the past. But the truth is, we are mortal beings with limited time on this earth. Time spent by the animalist worker, rallying against his capitalist exploiters, is time taken away from efforts aimed at defeating human supremacy. That's the reality, sad as it is. And while surely capitalism and human supremacy are connected, some efforts more directly fight one than the other. Conscious or not, some sort of prioritization of struggles must take place. And to me, that's what the Non-Human First Declaration is. It states the signatories prioritize the goals of the animalist movement above all other political objectives.
In perhaps the most controversial statement of the text, the declaration states, "No one should be excluded from participation in animal rights activities based on their views on human issues. The non-human animals are in a situation of immediate emergency and need all the help they can get! Furthermore, the women’s rights, anti-racism, etc. movements have no requirement that participants reject species oppression and nor should the animal movement demand the adherence to human rights positions while animals are still in a state of emergency." Such a big-tent approach is fairly common on other movements. For instance, one must assume the National Abortion Rights Action League has no official position on the nature of capitalism. Were it to insist all of its members be socialists, the group would obviously be smaller and less effective.
Exploring this point in more depth, I've used the example of anti-war movement in the United States of the 1960s and 1970s. According to socialist Peter Camejo, there were two general strategies amongst peace groups of that era. One was represented in the Student Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (SMC), and the other in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Camejo belonged to the former organization, which — according to Michael Steven Smith and Paul Leblanc, writing in the International Socialist Review — ultimately served as the “backbone of the campus antiwar efforts.” For his part, Camejo credited SMC success to its big-tent approach.
“The SMC didn’t require that its members hold any particular beliefs outside of wanting the United States to immediately withdraw from Vietnam,” Camejo said. “The [Socialist Workers Party] understood that the development of a genuinely united mass movement against the war was of crucial importance and that people didn’t have to agree on the nature of capitalism, the two-party system, or other issues in order to work together to demonstrate against the war.” In contrast, SDS insisted participants in their anti-war efforts agree on multiple issues, and as a result their demonstrations were much smaller.
To me, the conclusions Camejo draws here feel intuitive, and how they would apply to animalist campaigns seems obvious. The fewer ideological demands one applies to potential members or participants, the larger your base of support will be. The more ideological demands one applies to potential members or participants, the smaller your base of support will be. In practice, this suggests we should support big-tent animalist groups, that don’t have an official position on new welfarism or abolitionism, let alone trigger warnings and Palestinian resistance. However, as the declaration states, "every rule has its exceptions."
The text continues, but I think, for the most part, it restates already-mentioned principles, the objections to which I've addressed. In conclusion, I believe the Non-Humans First Declaration has been unfairly demonized. While I will not speak to criticism of the signatories or social-media activity associated with the text, I do support the declaration itself. I look forward to what I hope is a constructive dialogue on the issue, free from personal attacks on both sides.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
For some time the exclusions, bans and focus on human politics has driven away support from the movement. Not only that but activism has been focused away from animals towards humans. While I was previously concerned by the NHF declaration due to the criticism it has received, I am beginning to see it maybe the only way to save our movement.
We must refocus, we must fight bans based on human politics, we must fight only for the animals.
We must refocus, we must fight bans based on human politics, we must fight only for the animals.
i use to think that this animals first stuff would let fash into the movement but ive realised now that not many fash actually give a fuck about animals. what is a far bigger problem is politics being used to exclude normal ppl from animal rights. to save the movement we need the big tent the animal first lot are asking for.
Get into a discussion with a hunter or vivisector or other career animal exploiter and chances are they will tell you, the activist, that you had better not eat meat, wear anything in anyway connected to nonhuman exploitation, never use a drug that may have been tested on nonhuman animals-and if you only eat grass, even that is wrong too. It is a moral perfection demand--made of nonhuman animal activists but not made of human rights activists (with rare exception--i.e. when China was criticized for its Tibet policy, it responded by saying the West has no right to say anything as it does things in Iraq etc).
As your article points out, nonhuman animals are being born to be tortured to death by incredible numbers, for industrial purpose and profit. No human exploitation can compare. This isnt about winning some suffering contest, but stating facts. If you truly care about the nightmare that exists today, you will recognize this.
It is not debatable. It must also be pointed out time and time again that the word holocaust originally referred to the sacrifice of nonhuman animals. The use of holocaust as a shorthand for the Nazi camps essentially means "they were treated like animals." Being "treated like an animal" means "being treated very badly."
We all agree that nonhuman animals are treated in ways we would not want to be treated.
I believe the Intersectionality movement is partly influenced by associates of Richard Berman's employers--the meat and vivisection industries, they seek to undermine animal advocacy that is targeting business profits that come from nonhuman torture and death. While it may be true that some in the Intersectionality movement are sincere--I think they protest too much--for those who claim to understand what is at stake with nonhuman exploitation they seem awfully out of tune with the scope of it.
It helps to remember that nonhuman exploitation issues mostly concern victims who are brought into the world for no other purpose than to be tortured to death for human purposes. The industries that profit from this do not want people to unify against them--they seek to create divisions.
As your article points out, nonhuman animals are being born to be tortured to death by incredible numbers, for industrial purpose and profit. No human exploitation can compare. This isnt about winning some suffering contest, but stating facts. If you truly care about the nightmare that exists today, you will recognize this.
It is not debatable. It must also be pointed out time and time again that the word holocaust originally referred to the sacrifice of nonhuman animals. The use of holocaust as a shorthand for the Nazi camps essentially means "they were treated like animals." Being "treated like an animal" means "being treated very badly."
We all agree that nonhuman animals are treated in ways we would not want to be treated.
I believe the Intersectionality movement is partly influenced by associates of Richard Berman's employers--the meat and vivisection industries, they seek to undermine animal advocacy that is targeting business profits that come from nonhuman torture and death. While it may be true that some in the Intersectionality movement are sincere--I think they protest too much--for those who claim to understand what is at stake with nonhuman exploitation they seem awfully out of tune with the scope of it.
It helps to remember that nonhuman exploitation issues mostly concern victims who are brought into the world for no other purpose than to be tortured to death for human purposes. The industries that profit from this do not want people to unify against them--they seek to create divisions.
You do not (and should not) need to argue that animal suffering is the greater problem. That you see the need to do so is a symptom of a very serious problem among our various movements. Namely, the growing insistence of the validity of the claim "OUR issue is the most important and if you are not willing to drop all your other issues in favor of working JUST on ours you show yourselves to be on the other side of our issue".
That is simply a BAD argument (invalid).
Even were it accepted "issue A is more serious that issue B" that is NOT sufficient reason to to argue that a given person should be working on A to the exclusion of B" and no reason at all to conclude that failure to do so implies on the other side of A.
The only time can argue "shows on the other side of A" would be when in the course of working on B an A issue arises among the people involved and is shelved as a distraction rather than dealt with. Even in that case we need to be careful that the "dealt with" means concurrently with continuing with B rather than "stop all work on B until A has been dealt with"
That is simply a BAD argument (invalid).
Even were it accepted "issue A is more serious that issue B" that is NOT sufficient reason to to argue that a given person should be working on A to the exclusion of B" and no reason at all to conclude that failure to do so implies on the other side of A.
The only time can argue "shows on the other side of A" would be when in the course of working on B an A issue arises among the people involved and is shelved as a distraction rather than dealt with. Even in that case we need to be careful that the "dealt with" means concurrently with continuing with B rather than "stop all work on B until A has been dealt with"
In all areas of life we must make choices based on the emergency of the situation. Unlike with human issues there are no intersecting forms of oppression to think of; non-human animals are not abused because of their race, sexuality, class, gender, etc. but simply because they are non-human animals. Additionally the scale of the oppression is so vastly disproportionate to any human issues that we must focus on it first and foremost.
If we lived in Nazi Germany, for example, no one would argue the priority was the workers rights of camp guards or campaigning for gender equality. Clearly the priority was fighting the Nazis and ending the holocaust. Today 150 billion animals (including sea animals) are killed each year for food alone - this holocaust is our emergency!
If we lived in Nazi Germany, for example, no one would argue the priority was the workers rights of camp guards or campaigning for gender equality. Clearly the priority was fighting the Nazis and ending the holocaust. Today 150 billion animals (including sea animals) are killed each year for food alone - this holocaust is our emergency!
Let's use some real life examples of what we are talking about here. But first, let's deal with what you just raised.
Urgency and importance of the issue are not necessarily the only concerns by which a person should base where they expend their limited resources (for action). Need to consider ALSO potential effectiveness because of location, skill set, who one knows, etc. One cause might have a vital need of "a person who can do thus and so" while the other causes competing have no particular need for that rare ability so just another body. Being able to "get to somebody" might apply to one cause but not the others. One might allow actions nearby while the others distant. One might be closer to the heart and or that one would dare more (sorry, not something simply in our heads as "more important")
Notice I said also (also a consideration in making the choice where to fight). We are not seeing SIMPLY criticism of people who choose to work on other issues as "not dealing with the most important" but as evidence of their racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. (pick the issue they are NOT putting their resources into.
OK, I promised a concrete example so here is a recent one. Was a "Black Lives" action and a "balloon release" was done. Some unfortunate woman made the comment, "pity they did a balloon release; that's environmentally destructive" only to get jumped on "You are a RACIST". In other words, even considering the consequences of unimportant details of an action with regard to "another issue" is forbidden.
Lyn, you have backwards what I was saying (you thought I was arguing AGAINST your choice to put animal welfare first?) But I do disagree that THE MOST SERIOUS problem is human mistreatment of animals. How about human destruction of the environment as a whole? << and no, although can often overlap, not the same thing, and we can sometimes be on opposite sides of the fence >> The point I am making is that those who choose to put priority on frighting for the animals DON'T have to justify that choice, nor does it make them racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
We are NOT, of course discussing whether racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. isues arise in the here and now of working for the animals (or for whatever we choose to prioritize).
Urgency and importance of the issue are not necessarily the only concerns by which a person should base where they expend their limited resources (for action). Need to consider ALSO potential effectiveness because of location, skill set, who one knows, etc. One cause might have a vital need of "a person who can do thus and so" while the other causes competing have no particular need for that rare ability so just another body. Being able to "get to somebody" might apply to one cause but not the others. One might allow actions nearby while the others distant. One might be closer to the heart and or that one would dare more (sorry, not something simply in our heads as "more important")
Notice I said also (also a consideration in making the choice where to fight). We are not seeing SIMPLY criticism of people who choose to work on other issues as "not dealing with the most important" but as evidence of their racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. (pick the issue they are NOT putting their resources into.
OK, I promised a concrete example so here is a recent one. Was a "Black Lives" action and a "balloon release" was done. Some unfortunate woman made the comment, "pity they did a balloon release; that's environmentally destructive" only to get jumped on "You are a RACIST". In other words, even considering the consequences of unimportant details of an action with regard to "another issue" is forbidden.
Lyn, you have backwards what I was saying (you thought I was arguing AGAINST your choice to put animal welfare first?) But I do disagree that THE MOST SERIOUS problem is human mistreatment of animals. How about human destruction of the environment as a whole? << and no, although can often overlap, not the same thing, and we can sometimes be on opposite sides of the fence >> The point I am making is that those who choose to put priority on frighting for the animals DON'T have to justify that choice, nor does it make them racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
We are NOT, of course discussing whether racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. isues arise in the here and now of working for the animals (or for whatever we choose to prioritize).
"Fascism is one of those words slung around the left with such frequency it has lost nearly all meaning. "
How do you feel about the concerted effort to ensure National Socialists (or Fascists) were openly welcomed to this ideology ? Surely the term fascist was not being wantonly slung around in this instance ?
"I've made similar statements in the past. But the truth is, we are mortal beings with limited time on this earth. "
In the UK, animal 'activists' are waving banners outside of abuse premises for a couple of hours then going home and telling everyone on FB about it.
Meanwhile, the anti-war activists are blockading arms factories, invading arms building and bringing the premises to a total standstill for at least one day. Also, such actions are regularly featured in the media, which brings attention to the cause.
Which would you say was a more effective action for a cause and which activists are putting their limited time to best use ?
" And to me, that's what the Non-Human First Declaration is. It states the signatories prioritize the goals of the animalist movement above all other political objectives."
Why above all other 'political' objectives ? Why not 'all' objectives ? Is a career and/or a nice warm house more important than ending animal slavery, for instance ?
"Such a big-tent approach is fairly common on other movements. For instance, one must assume the National Abortion Rights Action League has no official position on the nature of capitalism. "
Have you any data on whether they openly welcomed National Socialists (Fascists/Nazis) into their movement ?
Ditto SMC.
"Were it to insist all of its members be socialists, the group would obviously be smaller and less effective. "
That's plainly not true. ALF are a small group of non-fascist-welcomers who believe the struggles for human and animal rights are interlinked, yet they have accomplished more for the suffering animals in one night than the last four or five years of banner waving 'activists' have in the UK.
Surely you aren't going to deny the animal lives saved by ALF ?
"“The [Socialist Workers Party] understood that the development of a genuinely united mass movement against the war..."
Do you think the Socialist Workers Party would have openly welcomed National Socialists onto their demos ?
"The fewer ideological demands one applies to potential members or participants..."
Do you think openly welcoming National Socialists into a movement will result in broad public appeal for that movement ?
How do you feel about the concerted effort to ensure National Socialists (or Fascists) were openly welcomed to this ideology ? Surely the term fascist was not being wantonly slung around in this instance ?
"I've made similar statements in the past. But the truth is, we are mortal beings with limited time on this earth. "
In the UK, animal 'activists' are waving banners outside of abuse premises for a couple of hours then going home and telling everyone on FB about it.
Meanwhile, the anti-war activists are blockading arms factories, invading arms building and bringing the premises to a total standstill for at least one day. Also, such actions are regularly featured in the media, which brings attention to the cause.
Which would you say was a more effective action for a cause and which activists are putting their limited time to best use ?
" And to me, that's what the Non-Human First Declaration is. It states the signatories prioritize the goals of the animalist movement above all other political objectives."
Why above all other 'political' objectives ? Why not 'all' objectives ? Is a career and/or a nice warm house more important than ending animal slavery, for instance ?
"Such a big-tent approach is fairly common on other movements. For instance, one must assume the National Abortion Rights Action League has no official position on the nature of capitalism. "
Have you any data on whether they openly welcomed National Socialists (Fascists/Nazis) into their movement ?
Ditto SMC.
"Were it to insist all of its members be socialists, the group would obviously be smaller and less effective. "
That's plainly not true. ALF are a small group of non-fascist-welcomers who believe the struggles for human and animal rights are interlinked, yet they have accomplished more for the suffering animals in one night than the last four or five years of banner waving 'activists' have in the UK.
Surely you aren't going to deny the animal lives saved by ALF ?
"“The [Socialist Workers Party] understood that the development of a genuinely united mass movement against the war..."
Do you think the Socialist Workers Party would have openly welcomed National Socialists onto their demos ?
"The fewer ideological demands one applies to potential members or participants..."
Do you think openly welcoming National Socialists into a movement will result in broad public appeal for that movement ?
ALF is not a centralised group, nor does the Credo have any policy on human politics. There are ALF cells with people from all ends of politics in them and people that support a non-exclusionary approach to animal rights. One of the noted signatories to NHF is an ex-ALF prisoner!
As for the Anti-War movement and its associations, a patron of Stop The War Coalition is a member of the Stalin Society who celebrate one of the biggest mass murderers in history. Would it make sense to exclude such a patron? Of course not. The issue at hand is imperialist war, not Communism. Similarly when the issue at hand is animals, we should keep it that way.
As for the Anti-War movement and its associations, a patron of Stop The War Coalition is a member of the Stalin Society who celebrate one of the biggest mass murderers in history. Would it make sense to exclude such a patron? Of course not. The issue at hand is imperialist war, not Communism. Similarly when the issue at hand is animals, we should keep it that way.
What Nazi people are you talking about, Apache? Do you mean that one confused Gay kid that turned up to a couple of AR events that calls himself a National Socialist while voting for the Green Party? I hardly think that he was a threat to the movement!
Finally some sense is being spoken by Oliver, yes that boy was no threat at all.. that was obvious to me right away I had personally taken an interest in his situation once I saw him bullied on facebook and I befriended him and had him sussed, gentle as a lamb (a "tame Nazi" if you like!).. my idea was if he was welcomed to AR and ppl were quite nice to him and gave him a chance he might gradually move away from the NS stuff, great work those idiots trying to beat him up on a demo, as if that is going to make him more likely to do more AR and less of the NS, which he might just have done if ppl had just trusted in me a bit more and left him be!
National Socialist is just a label, ppl are individuals and more than just a label, it's not that simple that they are all monsters.. he was clear he didn't intend harm on anyone, not like in Nazi Germany and the holocaust.. but it meant the real ugliness of the AR movement came out in a big way.. it will never feel the same again to some of us, certainly to me and I've been AR for about 30 yrs!
National Socialist is just a label, ppl are individuals and more than just a label, it's not that simple that they are all monsters.. he was clear he didn't intend harm on anyone, not like in Nazi Germany and the holocaust.. but it meant the real ugliness of the AR movement came out in a big way.. it will never feel the same again to some of us, certainly to me and I've been AR for about 30 yrs!
We certainly need this "big tent" of inclusiveness.. there have been moves in some groups to exclude ppl for other reasons, one example an activist being banned from some demos due to being an anti-abortion activist.. it has happened already, as well as harassment on facebook and ppl advising others to implement more similar bans.
It is clear that once you start excluding "Nazis" the goalposts get moved to include ppl of many other views considered unpopular or not PC enough, or even to just ban ppl for vocally supporting inclusiveness!
Where will the bullying end if we do not accept the NHF declaration more widely?
I'm not putting my name many will know who I am anyway..
It is clear that once you start excluding "Nazis" the goalposts get moved to include ppl of many other views considered unpopular or not PC enough, or even to just ban ppl for vocally supporting inclusiveness!
Where will the bullying end if we do not accept the NHF declaration more widely?
I'm not putting my name many will know who I am anyway..
The article notes that the Declaration states that the role of animal rights activists is to represent the animals interests rather than our own. This is meant to apply while a person is acting as an animal activist, rather than in their life in general. The intended meaning is don't use the animal rights movement as a platform for human causes.
Of course an animal rights activist is free to take action for other causes, although reservations are expressed where such causes increase human privilege.
Of course an animal rights activist is free to take action for other causes, although reservations are expressed where such causes increase human privilege.
ALF may not be a centralised group but as you say they do have a credo and that credo includes human rights too (especially the non-violence to any sentient being bit - something the Nazis definitely didn't understand).
As to the Stalin point - people today are not going around assaulting/killing other humans in the name of Stalin, they are doing so in the name of NS.
As to the Stalin point - people today are not going around assaulting/killing other humans in the name of Stalin, they are doing so in the name of NS.
I wasn't talking about any specific Nazi, I was talking about the concept of openly welcoming Nazis into the AR movement.
Although Nazis didn't line up eagerly awaiting their chance to attend an AR demo, the precedence itself has led to some very good activists leaving mainstream AR (at a time when AR in the UK has all but ceased to be a movement) and is currently headless and desperately in need of veteran activists.
Although Nazis didn't line up eagerly awaiting their chance to attend an AR demo, the precedence itself has led to some very good activists leaving mainstream AR (at a time when AR in the UK has all but ceased to be a movement) and is currently headless and desperately in need of veteran activists.
As explained above, it wasn't about an individual, it was about the concept of openly welcoming Nazis into the AR movement.
Nazis have always been excluded from AR, it's not something that has just started.
"...the goalposts get moved to include ppl of many other views considered unpopular or not PC enough..."
Nope, the ALF credo wasn't formed with PC intentions in mind and predates PCism by at least 30 years!
"Where will the bullying end if we do not accept the NHF declaration more widely?"
You support the concept of Nazis being welcomed into AR and yet decry bullying ? Are you not aware of the atrocities carried out in the name of NS ?
"...the goalposts get moved to include ppl of many other views considered unpopular or not PC enough..."
Nope, the ALF credo wasn't formed with PC intentions in mind and predates PCism by at least 30 years!
"Where will the bullying end if we do not accept the NHF declaration more widely?"
You support the concept of Nazis being welcomed into AR and yet decry bullying ? Are you not aware of the atrocities carried out in the name of NS ?
So it's a part time thing, being an AR activist then ? One is not generally an AR activist in life, one merely becomes an AR activist during the times they wish to represent animals' interests rather than their own ?
That's not a very dedicated ideology. Can one then be a Nazi and attack 'lesser' humans during the times one wishes to not be an AR activist ?
"The intended meaning is don't use the animal rights movement as a platform for human causes."
Nobody has to use the AR movement as a platform for HR. Nobody should have to be told that Nazis and their ilk are not welcome in AR either, but that may be a bit difficult for an admitted part time activist to understand.
"Of course an animal rights activist is free to take action for other causes, although reservations are expressed where such causes increase human privilege."
Does being anti-Nazi and wanting all sentient beings to live in peace increase human privilege ?
And what about the human privilege of deciding to be a part time activist and only act for animals whilst "acting as an animal activist, rather than in their life in general" - is this a privilege humans should have whilst billions of animals are screaming for salvation ?
That's not a very dedicated ideology. Can one then be a Nazi and attack 'lesser' humans during the times one wishes to not be an AR activist ?
"The intended meaning is don't use the animal rights movement as a platform for human causes."
Nobody has to use the AR movement as a platform for HR. Nobody should have to be told that Nazis and their ilk are not welcome in AR either, but that may be a bit difficult for an admitted part time activist to understand.
"Of course an animal rights activist is free to take action for other causes, although reservations are expressed where such causes increase human privilege."
Does being anti-Nazi and wanting all sentient beings to live in peace increase human privilege ?
And what about the human privilege of deciding to be a part time activist and only act for animals whilst "acting as an animal activist, rather than in their life in general" - is this a privilege humans should have whilst billions of animals are screaming for salvation ?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network