The reason why campaigning animal advocates such as members of Animal Rising have to be so disruptive of the day-to-day activities of the general public is because it is the only way they can get a result. You can’t ask the general public nicely to stop eating meat in order to put a brake on climate change and treat animals more humanely. And I’m referring to livestock which is historically and ubiquitously treated abysmally by farmers.
Basically, you have to kick arse if you want a result in changing deeply ingrained and entrenched attitudes. This is the model that PETA uses to good effect. So, Animal Rising is simply following well-established guidelines.
The same goes for the campaigning group Just Stop Oil. A lot of people hate them because they are disruptive. They walk down the road slowly and traffic piles up behind them. That apparently is legal; that’s why they do it.
Mainstream right-wing media hate them too. They just don’t get it. All they see is disruptive eco-warriors being a nuisance. The Conservative party in the UK doesn’t like them either. Being right-wing they want to curb protests. It harks of a police state.
Suffragette, Emily Wilding Davison
Here’s an example of direct-action protest which even included violence but which eventually achieved its goal. The suffragettes. The most famous of them is probably Emily Wilding Davison who died when she walked in front of the King’s horse. She was jailed eight times before then and was dedicated to taking direct action. A blue plaque has been erected on one of her homes in recognition of her sacrifice.
Direct action sometimes is needed. At the time of Emily Wilding Davison, women’s rights were not too dissimilar to animal rights today, inadequate. The great-granddaughter of Emmeline Pankhurst and granddaughter of Sylvia Pankhurst, Helen Pankhurst said:
I personally really admire direct action and it’s important to remember that the militancy of the suffragettes was because they were cornered by police, because of the violence against.”
She admits that sometimes disruptive protest can be detrimental to the movement. It is difficult to know where to draw the line. But the point is that direct, disruptive action is sometimes necessary and you take the rough with the smooth on that.
Chris Packham’s views about protests
This is an update. In The Times of Wednesday, June 7, 2023, Chris Packham has called for a “tornado of change” to tackle the climate crisis. For clarity, the climate crisis is a disaster for both human and animal which is why it is relevant to this article.
Packham is preparing to host a Channel 4 documentary which has been provisionally titled Is It Time to Break the Law?
In the show he assesses the impact of imprisoning protesters. He asks whether more people should risk arrest. He said:
Peaceful protest has been a cornerstone of activism, but we must question whether it is enough. The time for complacency has long passed. It is up to us to drive a tornado of change that cannot be ignored.
My point completely in this article. It is time for some really strong protesting. The world needs to be woken up from its complacency. You can’t ask people to change deeply ingrained habits nicely. You’ve got to kick arse as they say.
Speciesism – the root cause of animal abuse
Click this link for more on speciesism.
Max Parry
And Max Parry, a Daily Express journalist, belittles and writes disdainfully about Animal Rising’s “contempt for ordinary Britons”. He thinks that their behaviour is extraordinary. But it isn’t. They are simply doing what they have to do to get heard, to get seen, to make a mark of some sort.
If a group of people want to change society, they have to be brave and bold and be prepared to go to prison. So, is their cause a good one?
Animal welfare is a great cause to fight for
It certainly is. Animal cruelty is everywhere. More so in Asia than anywhere else but even in the UK which is meant to be an animal loving nation, there is a lot of animal cruelty most of it legalised because it happens on farms.
The problem is this. The general public has become desensitised to animal cruelty on farms. As they don’t see it, it doesn’t exist. If you dig around and bother to educate yourself on the treatment of livestock you quickly learn that it’s unpleasant. Farmers seem to forget that they own sentient beings.
Take pigs – one of many possible examples
Pigs are intelligent. They are treated like nuts and bolts. Chickens can be great pets. They, too, are treated like nuts and bolts. Certainly not like sentient beings. Male chicks are thrown out with the garbage because they can’t produce eggs. Not an ounce of concern by the farmers for the pain and slow death they have caused.
Tweet: Pigs are cute and extremely intelligent brainy beings but still we see them as food. Do you really feel hungry seeing these terrified scared pigs who are going to murdered soon for your taste buds hunger??? Really?? It’s scary to even think. Please go VEGAN everyone.
Here’s an example. Pigs can be pets.
Global warming
And there is a linkup of course to global warming. The industrial farmers of Brazil are burning Amazonian Forest to make way for livestock farming to produce meat to feed the West. Cows produce methane. Methane is a global warming gas. As a combination of animal cruelty and climate change all rolled into one.
That, I guess, is why campaigning groups like Animal Rising and Just Stop Oil merge. This point is made by Max Parry in his Daily Express article. He infiltrated Animal Rising and a training day took place in a facility that was used to brief Just Stop Oil activists in East London.
Respect protestors and listen
The point I want to make is this: Max Parry is wrong. He sees it all through the eyes of a conventional, dyed in the wool meat eater. If you step back and look at the big picture you see the logic of becoming a vegetarian or vegan. You see the logic and indeed the necessity to do this to contribute to the suppression of global warming.
Why, therefore, criticise the brave young people who take big risks in trying and achieve this change in mainstream attitudes?
I have fought peacefully for animal welfare all my adult life, 58 years so far, because I don’t believe in violence, it gets animal welfare activists a bad name, but I can well understand those who think there is no other way to stop all the abuse. Too many people turn a blind eye, some sympathise but have no intention of trying to help stop it. Having fought to end the declawing of cats (along with other things) for the past 15 years, it’s very frustrating that even though there is evidence of the cruelty of this surgery, some veterinarians in some countries still do it, in fact some advertise it. Incredibly some cat owners think it’s acceptable too even with all the information there is about this cruel surgery, nowadays! So maybe ‘nice’ doesn’t work, but does ‘nasty’ work either? In the future people will look back and think what savages we are now, the cruelty of some to pets, the horror and killing of farmed animals, the experimenting on animals, etc etc, the list is endless. We can only battle on doing our bit for what we can because if we think too much, it seems hopeless that things will ever get better.
I agree with you. Nasty doesn’t work either. But passive resistance and peaceful disruption to make people sit up think and get in the news
– which I believe is not being nasty – does work in the end. Thanks for the comment. We must keep fighting for a ban on declawing. Your work and mind on this has helped to change things for the better.
I added a section to the page:
Suffragette, Emily Wilding Davison
Here’s an example of direct-action protest which even included violence but which eventually achieved its goal. The suffragettes. The most famous of them is probably Emily Wilding Davison who died when she walked in front of the King’s horse. She was jailed eight times before then and was dedicated to taking direct action. A blue plaque has been erected on one of her homes in recognition of her sacrifice.
Direct action sometimes is needed. At the time of Emily Wilding Davison, women’s rights were not too dissimilar to animal rights today, inadequate. The great-granddaughter of Emmeline Pankhurst and granddaughter of Sylvia Pankhurst, Helen Pankhurst said:
She admits that sometimes disruptive protest can be detrimental to the movement. It is difficult to know where to draw the line. But the point is that direct, disruptive action is sometimes necessary and you take the rough with the smooth on that.
Animal abuse and misuse is so prevalent, it makes me depressed and despairing. Everyone should step up and do and say their bit. Passive petition signing is not enough on it’s own!