Non-judgement

Establishing a non-judgemental space is useful before discussing specific issues of animal rights. Then we can come closer to each other, trust each other more, even though perhaps disagreeing in principle or on detail. Affection stops a disagreement turning into a quarrel, so it’s not a bad idea to throw in some manners, to set a standard of mutual regard. That’s a sufficiently powerful persuasion in itself. Vegans need to be the best mannered people on earth - powerful, outrageous, daring, but always affectionate, always insisting on respect, because this is a peace movement when all is said and done. It’s up to us to introduce the idea that both humans and non-humans deserve respect. Vegans are in the ideal position to show how peace works, on all levels.

Veganism

Meaning no harm to animals is the essence of veganism’s central principle. It determines so many of our daily activities and thoughts, so going vegan, at first, seems like a huge step. But most vegans I've met wouldn’t consider dropping back to being non-vegan again, not because they’re extremely disciplined but because the benefits are too good to let go of. It isn’t just about food, it's the whole lifestyle and thought process. What Jeff Masson calls “a somersaulting-forward process”, opening up to an entirely new experience. But that’s just on the personal side. The experience we have in our own lives also has world-wide implications for the things most of us want – peace, global health, harmony, etc. Veganism doesn’t necessarily make things easier for us socially - we may not connect with others too well or feel any less frustrated about living in a carnivorous community, but the significance of being a vegan is like living amongst the angels. We can’t help but be flying alongside some very great ideals and ethical principles. Going vegan is immediately inspiring. But … there’s always a ‘but’.
We always come back into the reality of being vegan in a non-vegan world. We have to learn how to deal with the hardness of people, their intolerance of so many wonderful ideas. Vegans may try to change their minds. Perhaps feel a bit of a mission to try. And when they react badly, we dislike that. It’s easy to then dislike them. In our minds we condemn them and can’t NOT show it. They hate that. They call our whole ‘new attitude’ aggressive. We counter attack by making value judgements. We attack them for their hypocrisy… and so it goes on. We, the tiny minority, make attacks on the vast majority and not surprisingly it really puts people’s backs up, especially because it refers the holy of holies – food. All too soon we find ourselves in the middle of a war zone, but as ever, on the back foot.
So vegans have to be careful, like a card player, not to use all our trump cards too soon. If provoked we don’t need go on the attack and waste any advantage we have. Our job is never to try to change people’s minds anyway, that’s something they must do for themselves. Our aim is to get useful information across without being offensive and without being offended by any poor response. All it is (we are doing) is preventing life-threatening dangers. It’s like telling a story, the details of which are both fascinating and memorable, and whether it warns of danger or promises peace it’s the sort of material you consider when alone. But we won’t get this far, of even starting to tell the story if we come on too strong, too soon. We have to bear in mind the subtlety of resistance, the need not to be confrontational, not to induce guilt. And never to get personal. Whenever we talk about these matters, our adversaries are on the look out for our withdrawal of affection towards them, a sure sign we have a nasty side. Just the slightest whiff of judgement stops people wanting to listen and to change their view of things.

Humans are more important

This sense of separation has become so deeply ingrained that we hardly know how to escape the belief - that we humans are the most important beings on earth and have dominion over the rest. For us it means we can do what we like with anything that can’t hit back, poor people, trees, minerals and most especially animals … which means we can behave as badly as we like. We can put animals in cages, mutilate them and generally control absolutely everything in their lives. We do it because it’s in our advantage to do it.
The greatest source of revenue comes from the farm animals trade. It’s more profitable to keep them in slums. And when we kill them we do so because we de-animate them: “animals lack self awareness and have no explicitly future-directed preferences. Their death seems less of a tragedy than the death of a self-conscious being who does have such preferences” – this is typical ant-animal talk.
Basically we treat them badly because we know can get away with it, no repercussions. We justify cruelty by believing that they experience things differently. So, for instance, drowning ants in the kitchen sink or crushing cockroaches under foot is of no consequence because these creatures show no sign of suffering (which is hardly surprising since they are so small and silent). We consider it’s not even necessary to think about it, or if we do force ourselves to justify what we do. then it becomes an act of pragmatism – we say of the ant or other insects that they are irritating ‘pests’ which need to be destroyed.
That same sense of separation is also there with fellow humans but we show it in a less direct way. Racism makes us feel separate to our coloured neighbours when there’s a compulsion to establish superior status over them. We see them as potential pests. We don’t have to be too obvious about it because we guess they’ve experienced racism before in their lives - we only need to signal how we feel by being pointedly not too friendly. We don’t have to spell it out to make them feel uncomfortable.
As separation-ists we are not interested in ‘inferiors’ as individuals. We’re particularly turned off just when they assume they are equal to us. We maintain our advantage over our inferiors, whether animals or humans, by making them feel inferior. They may be useful to us perhaps, but never social equals.
Racism stinks of course but speciesism is no different. Vegans, who don’t want to be part of this and choose to make a statement about it, refuse to enjoy any advantages from exploiting animals. The vegan attitude may be compared with that of a person who walks through a forest in awe of the beauty and only wants to preserve it, as opposed to another who sees the forest of trees as log-able items. With animals, as with our own children, it comes down to having a single response towards them - one of marvelling at their innocence and beauty and certainly never meaning them any harm.

Sanctuary

If the next logical step is to provide animals with sanctuary, this would be a departure from reality in most people’s eyes. It’s an entry into the world of idealism – the move away from abattoirs and animal foods, closure of animal farms and the building of sanctuaries for farm animals. This might be an ambitious plan but it wouldn’t happen overnight. It would happen gradually with a drop in meat sales, a consequent reduction in breeding, a retirement plan for ‘working’ animals, leading to an ultimate human/animal relationship based upon non-violent coexistence. The ‘realists’ would consider this goal both unattainable and impractical, and not even open to serious consideration. But the idea must be considered, since veganism is growing rapidly and ‘farm sanctuaries’ are already being set up. Some in USA have been in operation for two decades.
The idea of granting sanctuary to captive animals would be unpopular because it’s costly but also, with collapsing animal industries due to people swapping over to non-animal eating. It’s disturbing to the whole economy. For most people the idea is a non starter and wouldn’t even be considered seriously. But what happens if we refuse to consider it?
It happens that we might continue to support the animal industry with our dollars, whilst voting in leaders who’ll maintain the legality of animal farming, but as individuals, if we follow what everyone else does and follow our leaders, we’ll be caught up in all sorts of polluting and wasteful activities. The result is the destruction of everything we hold dear. By maintaining the status quo we hope we can guarantee some level of personal comfort but we hand on big problems to future generations and of course to the future of exploited animals themselves.
So to turn this around, to think about the future, to think how we can make things right for the animals and for ourselves, we surely have to consider animal sanctuaries. It would probably be expensive to set up enough of them, because there are still so many animals alive who need taking care of, but as the ‘domestic’ animal population decreases by operating a deliberate non-breeding programme, so the expense will become lower. Sanctuaries may be the only way to provide safety for animals, but it presupposes a great input of altruistic energy from the human community.
Those who are not going to be altruistic about this will continue in the same old way, with things getting ever more seriously out of hand, with consumers becoming more exploited themselves and the meat/animal-product industry becoming ever more desperate in their struggle to stay in business. Advertising (misinformation) will tell us to “eat more meat because it’s good for you”.
As soon as people realise it’s all lies the industries should, in theory, collapse more quickly. At present they are holding their own, simply by ever increasing the range and variety of products, to tempt us with new taste sensations along with the false promises of benefits to health and safety. Never is there a mention of the ‘exploitation of animals’. Customers spend their money blindly, without it ever occurring to them what they’re taking part in. Their conscience is soothed by the collective conscience. As one of the perks of being the superior species, it says okay to the killing of animals.

Symbiosis essential for mutual survival

Symbiosis: a beneficial association between two organisms of different species.

Holding onto the egalitarian ideal is never going to be easy but here in Australia, with our natural flair for rethinking things to fit our mongrel character, we’ve made certain break throughs. One of them seems to be that within our multicultural society we have built a mutually-benefiting and symbiotic relationship with each other. To some extent it allows us to coexist in an atmosphere of acceptance of opposites. We exploit the advantages and protest the disadvantages in a rough and ready way. It’s a society where things work on a human to human level.
It’s somewhat different when animals are brought into the picture, where they are simply part of an exploitation culture, with no chance for them to be part of any symbiosis. In this respect Australians are the same as others – we don’t take their interests into account in any way whatsoever. Even if we wanted it, there’s no chance of having a symbiotic relationship with them because we can’t gain their consent. So, in theory, animals and humans could be mutually beneficial, but it’s a million miles from any relationship we have with them today. It’s always us exploiting and allowing no advantage to the animals themselves. Even the apiarist finding and transporting a hive of bees to good feeding grounds is not doing it for the bees neither are they willingly giving up the honey to the apiarist.
As soon as we act to bring about symbiosis and we start to think ‘egalitarian’ everything changes. Speciesism and all the other exploitative attitudes fade away allowing us to accept non-separation as an ideal and therefore non-violence. This must be the aim of animal liberation, to bring about an attitude of equality between humans and animals we have exploited in the past. Thus we atone for the crimes of past generations by promoting sanctuary for all animals who are presently in captivity.

The egalitarian principle

In Australia we have fertile ground for developing and extending the egalitarian principle. Ever since the beginning of Western occupation, our treatment of indigenous people notwithstanding, this has been a strong unifying thread amongst new arrivals. As émigrés and refugees often from harsher countries, most of us or our forebears have had to pull together and develop a national identity that is not merely a faint copy of some overseas culture. The Australian uniqueness is its earthy honesty. It is, at its heart, egalitarian. A ‘fair go’, Jack’s as good as his master, toleration of minorities, accepting new attitudes, etc. In Australia we are in a prime position to show the rest of the world how it can be done. But it’s not as much a multicultural toleration of cultural differences as it is an example of general humanitarianism. It starts out as a respect for each other and the earth that we share. Most Australians are loyal to that sentiment. We prove it by having very little class system or adulation of the intellectuals. If we are at heart trying to prove a point here then we are naturals at extending the point to animals . . . for why would we arbitrarily exclude other sentient species from an equality that we advocate for ourselves? It is after all based on a principle of showing goodwill towards those with less advantage, a standing up for the oppressed.

Is it too risky to go vegan?

SATURDAY 25th JULY
The big break-through on animal rights will probably come when it’s taken as seriously as global warming and global food shortage. Each one of these issues needs an answer. We don’t want to lose the planet or our souls. So all the things we should be doing probably have a strong altruistic component.
But life is about surviving. Too risky to go vegan? It would mean excluding a lot of environmental focus? But on a more cynical level, is there doubt about which horse we back in life. Which is going to be the next cause, and to be on the winning side seems important. If we aren’t that cynical and believe in simply becoming involved in one of the ‘greater-good’ causes, we’ll not be motivated so much by personal ambition. Rather, we’ll more likely be fired up enough to acknowledge the damage that’s been done. We’ll want to talk about that; collectively want to do something to help fix it up.
The most talked about major issue today is NOT animal rights, it’s green issues. Presently, animal rights has a couple of things going against it. People in general are largely living for the day or for their own survival. They are not contemplating society’s loose nuts and bolts that they must help tighten. They don’t believe there’s a chance to repair things … “things have already gone too far”. And then there are those who simply doubt the need for the cause since, to them, animal rights isn’t relevant to any ‘final solution’, like saving the physical environment (which indeed is absolutely serious, and how! But the connections haven’t yet been made between these three vital issue areas: food shortage, planet destruction and animal slavery).
The first two areas are being talked about quite a lot today, but this last area is NOT. So, there’s further doubt amongst most of the serious and thinking people, that we don’t collectively have the ability to take on a cause which involves adopting a radical dietary shift. On a slightly more frivolous level, the ‘followers’ of animal rights seem, or are made to seem, too weird, mainly in what they say. For most educated or upwardly mobile people, the solution to the world’s problems is primarily human-centred or at least concerned about planetary destruction. To abandon the human causes for one championing non-humans is not only anti-human but masochistic in that vegans associate their whole lifestyle with ethics. So, in a nutshell, animal rights, or rather Animal Rights, seems implausible. On top of all this is a layer of frivolity in society’s misinformation message and it involves that classic put-off to anything – “the cure seems worse than the complaint”. Implying that a plant-based diet is pointlessly inconvenient as well as being too risky.
Perhaps it’s not enough to simply BE a vegan, unless we stand up against all this nonsense dressed up to foster doubt. In spite of all this barrage we must try to hang in there. If you are an abolitionist vegan and are trying to talk casually about animal rights it usually paints the human in a very poor light. And there’s masses of identification going on when we do this! But when we come across with the notion of not-touching-animals people are astounded. For vegans this is a tough one to present. We have no way of watering it down or making vegan principles sound easier. And in our own hearts we vegans have to take on board the fact that we could be facing a Herculean task. Because it’s not just a rear-guard action we’re fighting, we’re trying to present vegan living as attractive.
Vegan is great because of the way it represents the bigger picture, not because it gives us an easy ride or an easy answer. It’s so strong because it simply tells the truth about what’s going on.
For vegans, the complete picture we are advocating is not only a change of diet but a change of attitude on a number of levels. From food choices right down to the need for a level status, not just between each other but between the species. And maybe that attitude penetrates even further! I hope not too much here to pile on the plate.

Public speaking events

Last blog was all about, if I remember correctly, conversation. This follows on.

It’s a different approach when we’re public speaking. We have a whole block of time where we are being expected to speak and entertain … and take questions. The idea of a public address is to inform and have visual aids to help get information across. But we should also be setting ourselves up to be knocked down, to take questions that put us on the spot. If we are addressing a group, as opposed to having a casual conversation with someone, we are speaking to a subject on invitation, in detail. Specifically we are there to air a whole raft of ideas on the subject (we’ve been asked to speak about). It’s a good idea to have a simple programme of what is going to be covered in the talk, handed out before the talk takes place.
When public speaking we are attempting to reach two types: those who want to hear and those who don’t, or at least who don’t necessarily agree with us. We owe the first group the best we can offer, but the second group is the main challenge. They usually help us realise our shortcomings by posing difficult questions to catch us out. I should say, to challenge us. For our part, we must do the homework (no getting round that!) so that we can feel confident and can reasonably justify what we are saying.
The responding to comments and questions should be handled carefully. Not in a put-down manner but in a “that’s-an-interesting-point-you’ve-made-there” type of way. But just as important, our arguments should be able to spark the imagination and ultimately swing them around. What we’re not trying to do is make them feel stupid for their lack of knowledge or guilty about their own lifestyle or health issues or uncaring for supporting factory farms. It’s tempting to go that way but overall, we’re trying to be up-beat rather than confronting, trying to paint a picture of a bright future ahead, where animals aren’t being exploited and where we might enjoy a plant-based diet.
Obviously we have to believe in our own arguments but we must also promote them optimistically … and have our facts and references at hand, so that we can talk with some authority about health issues, ethics, farming, the environmental angle, world hunger and vivisection, whilst giving directions to useful web sites and books, etc – all this, so that no one can accuse us of being too emotional, uninformed or unprofessional. Or indeed uninteresting or not useful. From the audience’s point of view, a talk should be worth giving up ones time to attend and from the speaker’s it should seem to be the most passionate and enjoyable thing that could be being done.
A talk shouldn’t last more than 20-30 minutes, and whatever time we take to say our piece an equal amount of time should be made available for questions and comments from the floor (and prior note of that time balance made clear in the accompanying program that’s been placed on their seats). Some want to ask questions but some quite validly want to make comments. By having a pre-set time-ration mentioned *, to stop people taking over (and boring everybody witless with their own diatribe), questions or comments need to be *succinct, then everybody who wants to say something gets a go. A timer is useful for keeping to the set times announced at the outset – how long approximately the talk is going to last, time allocated for Q & A, any breaks, and the actual time the event will finish, etc. A really good idea is to have something to eat and drink in the middle or afterwards so that, for those who want to, they can have an informal chat or just time to catch up with friends.
Perhaps to prove our point about the need to ‘go-vegan’, nothing is better than some food samples. It’s a great opportunity to introduce some tasty vegan snacks and have further information for those interested - books, booklets, fact sheets, DVDs - available. But may I suggest that if it’s all kept as far as possible free-to-attend and not a sales pitch for merchandise (perhaps to have a donation box available to cover costs), then the event won’t look like a money-grubbing exercise. Our motives, for going to the trouble of setting up this sort of event should appear to be unutterably pure.

Putting people at ease

If vegans do have the chance to speak about animal rights, the fewer flowery language we use the easier it is to simply exchange information and ideas. If we can move on from making our listeners feel uncomfortable each time we bring this subject up, the sooner we can win a reputation for being sensitive and interesting and shed the one at the moment which is intimidating, guilt-inducing, not very well informed and not interesting. In other words, if we show respect for people listening to us and then continue to open up doors for them to walk through, we’ll be bringing them deeper into the issues almost without them noticing. That may stop them wanting to retreat half way through what we are saying. Our job isn’t to make up their minds for them but to let them take in what we say which, afterwards, thinking about it, helps them come to their own conclusions. If we can ease their suspicion of us, our advocacy can be of great service to them. Bottom line: it’s the way we talk about these difficult issues that counts. It t helps us educate more effectively.

Animals as individuals

Vegans are at peace with pigs and cows. When we see them or come into casual contact with them, there’s no embarrassment. When we see a beautiful hen pecking on the ground we don’t feel guilty. We may feel ashamed on behalf of our fellow humans who eat them, but we know we can’t be responsible for their actions. Of course this doesn’t stop us feeling angry about people putting animals on their plate, but what can we do? We can’t dismiss the whole of humanity or feel angry all the time. The people we are in contact with are our friends, kids, parents, partners, neighbours. All we can do is suggest they go cruelty-free shopping with us, because this is where it starts, and we can show them things they wouldn’t normally look at. If they can incrementally change, they can eventually step away from all animal produce. By changing shopping habits, by making one small gesture each day and expanding on it anyone can make a transition.
If we, as animal advocates, who try to lead a cruelty-free life, want others to do the same as we do, we need to sell it. Like any other product, it needs to be made attractive. We’re appealing to people’s higher instincts, to see for themselves that this new habit is ultimately attractive on its own account.
If we introduce it that way then, like anything intrinsically interesting, it doesn’t need to be pushed. The introduction of the subject is all a matter of good timing - of waiting, and then dropping the suggestion into the conversation when we get a green light. Once there’s an interest in finding out what we have to say then the pressure is off. Then we can drop the sales pitch and simply talk through the issues without coming on too strong or going on too long. The curious might still be wary because they probably realise how confronting it is for them. They might be wanting to learn more but afraid to ask and then be overwhelmed. They may have the best intentions but not enough confidence to make the jump. The more practical information we can make available to them the better.

Species equality

Traditionally, for humans, there is no sense of equality between us and other species. We humans are speciesist, by tradition. But not vegans, who are attempting to change all that. Vegans no longer depend on animals and therefore can respect them as individuals and see them as irreplaceable individuals. Vegans hardly dare touch them let alone dare to exploit them. Whereas non vegans see them as part of an amorphous mass of living tissue for the taking.
In our world animals are either companions and honoured friends or they’re dinner or they’re resources to be exploited or they’re pests to be eradicated. We are at our most diabolical in our treatment of them. Whereas our keeping a dog as a pet is a relatively benign activity, when we eat a cow it is NOT AT ALL a benign activity. The cow is neither a loved companion animal nor has the dignity of wildlife. Farm animals are almost man-made, purpose-built. In no sense at all do we have a true relationship with them, since we always under every circumstance think we are superior to them.

Veganism as a new idea

Vegans seem preposterous to the ‘outside world’, as if we are making radical changes to our lives in order to alienate the very people we want to be close to. Vegan ‘behaviour’ seems to be either the height of bad manners or a play for attention, as if vegans want to be radical for its own sake. People try to rubbish the idea for its sheer madness, and cite the negative health implications to emphasise that it’s taking things too far. They may also consider the welfare of farm animals too unimportant.
Of course, nothing makes vegans more frustrated than when they hear this. They feel they’ve nothing to lose by putting their case more aggressively … which makes the adversary dig their heels in harder, and so the chasm widens until there’s no chance of any meaningful dialogue. So, how could we play it instead? I’d suggest we try to remain equals, me no better than you just because I’m this or you’re that. We may have differing beliefs and values, but it’s all very subjective.
We can notice it more easily when it happens between cultures, where racism emerges. For example, it’s probably true that within the Western culture especially, we grow up believing we’re a bit special. That some are more superior than others, genetically superior to blacks or the people from poorer nations, or special for being cleverer or better looking. Within cultures it spills over into ethics, making me better than you because I’m vegan or I’m a responsible environmentalist, etc. We even ask ourselves how can we seriously tolerate people who are so obviously less advanced.
If we are going to make things better for our world, firstly all of that attitude has got to be dumped. If we were truly egalitarian we’d never allow ourselves to look down on some and not others or put up with being looked down upon. And then it’s surely logical that we’d extend this same feeling to other species . . . and that’s where vegans are coming from. We consider animals just as worthy of respect as humans and just as entitled as we are, to a life. Ideally we’d feel an equality with animals, not just for the animals we know, like dogs and cats, but for cows and chickens and wild animals, and in fact any creature with sentience. ‘Equality’ brings out the humanity in us, which ends up giving us a feeling of well being.

The superficial consumer

The best time to consider our own attitudes to animals is when we are shopping. Mostly we insist on getting what we want, emulating that carefree hedonism of the richer classes, buying almost anything that takes our fancy. As we attempt to ‘live life to the full’ we might force ourselves to ignore ethics, environment and health, just for the shere joy of pleasure or ‘being filled’. When decisions involve food, especially when we’re buying ‘steaks’ stakes are high! NOT the time to be closely considering things like: responsibility, animal issues, etc. A person like this seems shallow, but that’s the extreme – superficial … and it’s our superficiality that leads us to danger (rarely our genuinenesses).
Seventy years ago people would have been horrified at the thought of putting their hens into tiny cages for their whole life. It would have been considered diabolical, and yet today we accept it. We eat eggs and think nothing of it. It is one of those things we can’t look at too deeply for fear of questioning our own inhumanity. No one wants to be reminded of this. And on that superficial level of thinking is, for most people, where animal rights questions arise (don’t arise!).
If they arise at all, the principle of veganism must seem ridiculous.

Connecting, not abusing

To attack the non-vegan is a mistake. We have somehow acquired the image of vegans being attackers. If so, this has to be changed. Communication between people of differing viewpoints, high priority to go on the attack. It’s easy and gives a sugar-hit for frustration and feeling alone, but we need to learn how to make connections with people, listen to them, not put their back’s up, or rather their ego’s up.
Perhaps at the back of any frustrated activist’s mind is a reluctance to get down to the business of learning how to connect with people who seem to be opposed to us. A passionate promotion of animal rights might not be the only answer to successfully hitting home. I hope all of us are trying to promote and educate people, even when there are those who so adamantly don’t want to listen. Depressing! Often they’re friends and adversaries at the same time. Rather than trying to persuade them it’s often more exciting to go to a demo, so you feel you’ve done something.
Perhaps what I’m driving at here is that a scale exists. We’re not just tickling people’s ribs with some new brand of idea, we’re making some pretty heavy statements. Anyway, that’s how people feel towards us, as if we were a bit of a threat.
From our point of view, obviously, we’re keen to win over the majority. Eventually many millions. Actually billions! So we’re trying to touch many people and bring them on-side. We can’t afford to miss any opportunity to win people over. We only lose potential supporters when we abuse them. Far better to invite them to eat or go food shopping with us than to fight.

The big issues

* Aplogies for today's blog being longer than usual.

Vegans want to strike a blow for compassion, and we are willing to deny ourselves things for that. We know where we stand on the big issue of animal slavery even though it’s opposite to how the majority believe, and we realise why people (who would like to agree with us) don’t agree because it logically leads to going vegan, and that for many people is a scary idea. Everyone agrees slavery is a terrible thing but because of the difficulties imagined in becoming vegan most people can’t let their horror of slavery apply to animals, not the ones they eat anyway. They’ve been brought up with animal foods and with animal eating people. To question animal slavery and to alter conventional eating habits is socially prohibited, but thought quite mad too since humans must not let the side down by not acting like a dominant. In the case of animals, especially over the ones we eat. Our own convenience must outweigh ethics, just in this one area. No argument is valid when it comes to the human birthright of eating the animals.
This is where vegans and non-vegans part company. And often it’s the reason we don’t feel at one with the omnivore who, apart from food items, also buys clothing and other commodities that are animal based or tested. It’s why vegans feel separate from those who aren’t vegan, and once that separation is apparent it puts us one rung up (or down) the ladder, and the first level of separation takes place. We set up shop as vegans and live according to a quite different set of rules to non-vegans, but it doesn’t stop there, because we itch to discuss this subject. We’ll bring up the issues when others would prefer we didn’t. It almost looks like vegans are spoiling for a fight or are wanting to cause embarrassment.
The Interface: if an argument starts up it can easily and quickly become intimidating. But how can we know, if the subject arises, that things won’t turn nasty? From a vegan’s point of view, if the subject comes up, why let anyone get away with opinions that we passionately disagree with? Why not make it clear where we stand?
It’s a trap for all concerned. For example you visit someone’s house. Food is offered out of hospitality. We refuse it - the reason is given and a response to that is expected. The ‘meathead’, no, it’s not polite to use that word, let’s say ‘non-vegan’, he or she thinks they can brush matters under the carpet, change the subject or say something that will appease. The vegan might not accept that and decide to bludgeon their way through with their own attitude to animal food.
This vegan seems rude. The vegan hopes this rudeness will be outweighed by an admiration for our having the courage of our convictions, etc. But there’s much less of this admiration knocking around than we might think. It’s a danger zone for vegans, that one.
The trap closes as each party underestimates the strength of opinion of the other. Each underestimates the willingness of the other, to accommodate differing views. The non-vegan thinks they’re protected from being condemned, because almost everyone else does ‘it’, and questioning such a vast majority is not considered very sensible. So, mostly they haven’t thought about these issues, purposely. Like squeamish people avoiding information about people’s surgical interventions, so most meat eaters avoid self-disapproval areas, especially concerning the need to become vegetarian.
When vegans are around there’s a whiff of impending collision … with one. So if vegans are aware of this, they’ll know what to do. I suggest number 1: that it’s not useful for vegans to express in any way disapproval - one look, one tone of voice, is all it takes. In this ‘secret’ world we’re all joined up in, if there’s even one hint of “evangelist”, the game is up. Vegans, from then on, will be purposely (and justifiably) avoided, because of the fear that VEGANS are not dispassionate, and especially that we’re not going to be dispassionate about their reply. It reminds people of walking into a no-win situation. And that is unnerving!
Innocent vegans often have no idea how badly they are thought of. But that’s also exactly the same as the innocence of the meat eater, who also has no idea how they are thought of, by ‘green’ people, specifically for lacking enough moral fibre to make a stand about something that’s important to them.
Perception of each side is so totally, foundationally, on opposite banks of the river that one mirrors the other - in the meathead’s view the vegan is to blame, because Mr and Ms Righteous Vegan have no idea how pushy they seem and how that approach offends. The problem here is that:
Vegans think hard about something that matters to them whilst,
Non-vegans think almost nothing at all about the very same matters.
Obviously this world is very wicked.
So many issues are crowding out our conscience.
We have to ask which issues are more important than others?
Which are the major decisions we should be making, to rescue any of the terrible situations facing humanity and the planet?
Which decisions should we be making, when we behave in ‘questionable ways’?For example: if we travel by air it’s our carbon footprint; if we ignore the plight of suffering people it’s our selfishness. We are faced with our own behaviour all the time, and, at the first whiff of criticism, it’s likely we resent it, and dig our heels in, and refuse to change - we’ll simply try to avoid the critic. And when someone is avoiding a vegan for fear of inevitable confrontation then it’s obvious. From a vegan’s point of view, when they are avoided, they want to hit back, by attacking the “meatheads”.

Energy maximisation

Maybe as vegans we are convinced about our arguments concerning animal slavery but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be a breeze convincing others. The odds are stacked against us. It all becomes energy-draining when there’s no apparent progress. So what do we do to prevent a collapse of our own vital energy? Usually we fret, worry about being ineffective, lose motivation, feel tired, depressed, etc. In an attempt to restore energy we steal it from our day to day commitments until something suffers in our private life, relationships become stretched, projects are neglected, we don’t do things well and we are torn between our commitments. The more we do for animal rights the less time we spend with family and friends.
The original idea that inspired us eventually makes too heavy a call on our energy and puts pressure on our other commitments. Even keeping up our vegan diet or vegan lifestyle demands extra energy. In other words vegans take on extra responsibilities and for these they need supplies of emotional energy and energy of every type. What helps to build energy more than anything is inspiring books or watching those DVDs about modern day methods of animal husbandry or going and seeing for ourselves how they handle animals. Whatever fires us up and keeps us passionate, wherever we find the impulse to be dealing with the issues, this is what keeps us going, with the work in hand.
If we let our personal life suffer in any way we know things will go wrong all round, so it’s a matter of getting the energy balance right. We know the cause is important but how do we find the energy we need for it without compromising home life? Certainly vegan food is high powered stuff, plenty of energy there, and unlike most other people we aren’t slowed down by eating stodge. As well, the significance of the issues themselves help boosts energy. But burn-out is never far away. So, how do we keep up a high energy profile? supply?
If energy is a problem it may be our attitude to energy itself needs looking at. Maybe we should consider energy not like a finite resource, like the amount of petrol we have left in the tank, but a self perpetuating process, as if a certain type of energy once released acts to generate more energy; a type of energy that expands the more it is expended. We hope that animal rights activities can give us energy in much the same way as, say, acts of kindness often do, where we get a beneficial feeling about it and are often surprised by how little energy depletion takes place when we’re giving out or we’re feeling passionate about something. It’s a contradiction of the laws of physics, this energy. It defies logic. But it may be true that - the more we use, the more it is replaced.
By letting go of self interest and starting to think about others’ interests instead, the switch-over occurs. In the case of caring about animals, defending their interests, we draw energy from involvement -doing the right thing leads to generating energy for ourselves. Could it be that simple? Could it be that when energy is released for the ‘greater-good’ that we start a chain reaction? Could it be that when we begin to take an interest in a forest, an animal, a human, when we start advocating for them and not for ourselves, the energy seems to appear from nowhere?
Does the opposite happen, where self-interest drains energy? More greed, more need? If so, it puts a whole new spin on things, in that however hard pressed we are with our personal lives it may be that we’ll always have time and energy for a cause because the cause generates energy.

After the debate

After the talking is over we might have to agree to disagree. And then move on. Repairs to be done and time over for talking. But whatever we are doing we always eventually have to come back to getting ideas across. Struggle and frustration it might be, but this subject can be a never ending fascination, finding new ways of convincing people that vegan food is fantastic and the vegan principle universally relevant. But relevant to what? What are our priorities? Is it animal rights, damage to the planet or starving children? The scale of each problem is great but why vegans go on about the animal issue so persistently is because it is such an easy crime to identify and so simple to contribute to the ending of. Meals can become cruelty-free, every item of clothing can come from plants and our cosmetics and toiletries can all be non-animal tested. By starting here with commodities we help to transform this species into something much grander, where we WANT to focus our attention on all three areas, repair each one just for the sheer love of the defenceless life forms around us. But how do we communicate such an optimistic message?

We do have some pretty impressive arguments, we just need to know how they can be packaged, so that they’ll make sense to anyone. We need to be reasonable people and use reason to float our ideas, but our effectiveness depends on how we communicate. Remaining friendly in an atmosphere of provocation shows a lot about our constructive character. If we can all rub along together and take up positions in opposition to one another but refuse to take umbrage, then our opposite views are mutually challenging. Opposition doesn’t have to mean assault. As long as we keep the focus on repair we can delve deep into issues concerning food, animals, health, planet, non-violence, children … and if we’ve been talking together constructively, it doesn’t matter if there’s been lot of disagreement.

Debate

It’s hard to get a debate going on animal rights. We may be busting to tell people everything we know about the horrors of animal abuse but others hold strong views too, including the tight not to have to listen to us, so we need to respect the sovereignty of opinion. Even if we reckon it’s a patently wrong opinion, all opinion-holders should be able to have their say. Otherwise we lose the freedom of speech.
There should be clear channels for airing views without fear of being attacked or cut down before we’ve said our piece. If, for example, we’re debating the use of animals, we are bound to touch on animal products, which means some will think we’re having a go at them and therefore there’ll be some heavy disagreement. Whether we are discussing with friends or with an audience, there’s no point in wasting a good opportunity by becoming defensive or aggressive whenever we’re not on common ground. If we get aggro about our views we cause people to dig in their heels and argue against us, just to save face.

Setting the stage

[This blog is also much longer than usual - 700 words]

There’s so much waste and cruelty and so much done against the greater good, that it makes some people despair. For others it quickens the importance of the work that has to be done before things get worse. And that work, the repair of rivers, forests and habitats, as well as the repair of our attitudes to animals, needs a mature, environmentally-aware set of vegan principles to power it. Veganism represents an attitude change which can inspire this sort of repair, by using a non-violent approach. Vegans are in a position to play an important part in restoration work, having cleaned up their act by going so far in attempting to shake off their ‘shadow’ (they’ve done it by respecting the natural order of things and reversing their own speciesism. Hopefully, apart from our attitude to animals, we’ve also learnt to be at-one-with-others and practise non-violence in action. If we’ve done that then, as vegans, we are in a position to help bring about a transition to a peaceful future.
If in the future there were to be peace, we’d see the beauty of animals, obviously intend them no harm, and we’d automatically be vegan. If we were truly at peace with the world we’d even be close to the people who hold different attitudes to animals.
But we aren’t at peace yet, which means vegans have to be the first to set an example, by taking on a self discipline that unfortunately, for the present, keeps us separated from others. That’s hard for vegans however there are compensations. We do enjoy a freedom others don’t. We should make the most of it to build a new template for human community.
Vegans and the society in which we live (being in it but not of it) are obviously trying to live as non-violent members of society, our aim being to encourage no ‘dislike’. People who aren’t vegan don’t need to be disliked and should feel free with us to explore all the ethical issues we talk about without being afraid. For vegans it may come as a surprise but even though we disagree with others about important issues we can still like whoever it is we’re talking to. We can even give the appearance of liking them too!. It’s a great step forward for any non-vegan to be discussing vegan issues, so we as vegans don’t have to win every argument – our aim shouldn’t be to put them right or fight tooth and nail to prove we are right but help maintain a creative flow of ideas and views.
Within any dialogue, however we answer questions raised by others, we should be making our own point too … by the direction we take things, maybe not getting anywhere near that point we want to get to but having that aim nonetheless. Then others will see we have an agenda and that we mean business … but not sacrifice everything to make our point. However serious our aim is, it doesn’t have to be so serious that it could make someone feel so uncomfortable that they read it as a feeling of dislike towards them. Once there’s animosity, the game is over in an instant, and that disliking will cloud everything that has gone before or will come after.
If I am having any sort of serious discussion, I can alter the atmosphere just by raising the tone of my voice, to indicate if I’ve lost patience or am ready to show more interest. We are all adept at showing likeableness or revealing that we have ‘a nastier side’. And if my nasty side comes through I can kiss goodbye to any good will. Once that appears I’m no longer listened to. It doesn’t matter how intelligent my arguments might be, as soon as I’m no longer liked or respected, every word I utter will fall on deaf ears. And if, as an opinion-holder, I’m disliked then it’s likely my opinion will be disliked too; a person might come to dislike veganism on the basis of disliking the vegan who introduced the idea, hence the bathwater is thrown out with the baby.

The shadow

[This is a twice-as-long-as-usual blog - 930 words]

We might be having a casual conversation about animal rights. No one’s used to talking about such things so we’ll duck and dive around the issues with nothing said quite directly, with feelings often hidden or snide remarks being made, all attempting to say things that we believe but which could be unwelcome and sour the atmosphere between us. I mention all this as a prelude to the quote that follows, from Will Tuttle’s book The World Peace Diet. (http://worldpeacediet.org). It describes, on page 222, ‘the shadow’ (in Jungian terms) being “our cruelty and violence towards animals”. What Will Tuttle says we might not like, and so we might want to rubbish it, because if we don’t then we might have to agree and that would lead to a big lifestyle change.

Tuttle:
“Children who are violated and abused will, when they become adults, tend to violate and abuse their children in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that rolls through the generations. We address it by trying to stop the child abuse, and fail to see the deeper dynamic. This human cycle of violence will not stop until we stop the underlying violence, the remorseless violence we commit against animals for food. We teach this behaviour and this insensitivity to all our children in a subtle, unintentional, but powerful form of culturally approved child abuse. Our actions condition our consciousness; therefore forcing our children to eat animal foods wounds them deeply. It requires them to disconnect from the food on their plates, from their feelings, from animals and nature, and sets up conditions of disease and psychological armouring. The wounds persist and are passed on to the next generation.
Compelling our children to eat animal foods gives birth to the “hurt people hurt people” syndrome. Hurt people hurt animals without compunction in daily food rituals. We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be? We carry the violence, in our blood, and in our consciousness. Covering it up and ignoring it doesn’t make it disappear. The more we pretend to hide it, the more, like a shadow, it clings to us and haunts us. The human cycle of violence is the ongoing projection of this shadow.

The Shadow
“In Jungian terms, our culture’s enormous, intractable, overriding shadow is the cruelty and violence towards animals it requires, practises, eats and meticulously hides and denies. … The shadow archetype represents those aspects of ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge, the part of ourselves that we have disowned. To itself, the shadow is what the self is not, and in this case it is our own cruelty and violence that we deny and repress. We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people. We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein. Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture.
“As Jungian psychotherapy emphasizes, the shadow will be heard! This is why we eventually do to ourselves what we do to animals. The shadow is a vital and undeniable force that cannot, in the end, be repressed. The tremendous psychological forces required to confine, mutilate, and kill millions of animals every day, and to keep the whole bloody slaughter repressed and invisible, work in two ways. One way is to numb, desensitize, and armour us, which decreases our intelligence and ability to make connections. The other is to force us to act out exactly what we are repressing. This is done through projection. We create an acceptable target to loathe for being violent, cruel, and tyrannical – the very qualities that we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves – and then we attack it. With this understanding of the immense violence toward animals that we keep hidden and the implacable shadow this creates, the existence of 50,000 nuclear warheads becomes comprehensible. Our “never-ending” war against terrorism becomes not just comprehensible but inevitable, as does our appalling destruction of ecosystems, the rampant exploitation of the world’s poor, and the suicide, addiction, and disease that ravage countless human lives.
“The shadow is the self that does the dirty work for us so we can remain good and acceptable in our own eyes. The more we repress and disconnect, the more inner disturbance we will carry that we must project on an outer evil force, an enemy or scapegoat of some kind, against whom we can direct our denied violence. We will see these enemies as the essence of evil and despise them, for they represent aspects of our self that we cannot face. In our quest to eliminate them we are driven to build the most hideous weapons imaginable, developing them throughout the centuries so that today we have the capacity to destroy all of humanity hundreds of times over. This is not just something in our past, like the generations of inquisitions, crusades, and wars. We eat more animals, project more enemies, and create more weapons than ever before. Every minute 20,000 land animals are killed in United States slaughterhouses and the Pentagon spends $760,000 (every minute). This huge expenditure on maintaining and developing systems to harm and destroy other people is a particularly egregious manifestation of the tragic suppression of intelligence caused by eating animal foods. “ Will Tuttle (reprinted with permission)

Vegan

"Vegan" conjures up the idea of difficulty, so it’s dishonest to say becoming vegan is easy. Our listeners aren’t fools – they can see veganism isn’t complicated to understand but is probably quite hard to carry out. It is based on a set of principles so simple a small child could understand it, but in reality it means a lot of giving-up of things. To contemplate giving up familiar and favourite food, for example, isn’t something we do hastily. Considering veganism, we bring on a taste bud revolt. It involves mainly food but not only food. There are clothing items, shoes made of leather, entertainments using animals, cosmetics tested on animals - the list is long. Then there are social factors involved in becoming a vegan, handling being a social misfit, being ridiculed by others, etc. But to get it all into proportion we have to remember that it’s a beautiful and mighty principle we, as vegans, are promoting. Surely, we can put up with the pain of being misunderstood, especially when we think of the advantages we get, of a clear conscience, a healthy body and the beneficial effect (of a plant based diet) making for a clearer mind and faster brain. Admittedly, it’s a discipline and therefore we have to work at it, but we are undoubtedly contributing not only to the ‘greater-good’ but to a better carbon footprint. And the plant-based diet we adopt, if taken up by large numbers of people would, in the end, lead to the eradication of world hunger, since most of the plant food currently being grown is still being fed to animals, so that they can be ‘grown’ to feed humans. Vegans cut out that whole wasteful process entirely. But the greatest advantage of veganism is in the significance of its disassociation with animal cruelty. Whatever hardships vegans might have to put up with, nothing compares with the suffering of the animals. So nothing is as important as boycotting products and sparing so many innocent beings from unnecessary pain and suffering. That is what ultimately cements vegan resolve and ultimately makes sense of what we say.
But veganism isn’t a breeze. It’s still difficult for people who want to be vegan, especially if they have a mental block about how to get past addictions to their favourite foods (especially if there’s a nagging belief that a plant-based diet might be unsafe). All the more reason then that we, as vegans, should realise where most people are at and why what we are saying may be frightening. And if we speak aggressively it can be both shocking and insulting. For example, the slogan “Meat is Murder” is really saying “You are a murderer” and for that reason alone vegans need to ease up on the invective. Accusing people of this is seen as an attack. Is it valid to attack like this? How careful should we be with our words? Surely it’s valid to point out the nasty side of human nature, even though we know people will turn away if we do? It’s always a toss up between need-to-know and wanting-not-to-know.
If it is valid to speak very openly then what exactly is this aspect of human nature we’re trying to draw people’s attention to? It is common to everyone, vegans included. For all of us ‘our shadow’ exists. It is that part of us we want to hide, not the gentle, generous side but the hard, mean-hearted side. Vegans may say things that shock and people’s reaction is predictable, but as soon as veganism is mentioned, something funny happens between people. As soon as, in a conversation, the penny drops that ‘animal rights’ is the subject and not health or diet, a defence shield goes up. If vegans decide to try to talk about animal rights, we must to decide beforehand how far to go and let intuition guide us by the moment. At times we have to talk openly and at other times pull back. By pressing forward we don’t know where someone’s breaking point is going to be, if they’ll see it as a personal attack or if they’ll be stimulated by our challenge.

Making it interesting to people

The BLOG ends here for a week, no access to Internet and working away from home. Blog resumes 12th July.

When it comes to talking about animal rights we need to be seen as fair minded, creating a space for free exchange of opinions, so that those who don’t agree aren’t made to feel unsafe when they speak out against our ideas. Vegans should be assessed, ‘sight unseen’, as decent people. People who wouldn’t try to hurt anyone’s feelings just to win their argument. They wouldn’t swoop in for the kill to make the non-vegan look foolish or evil.
If we don’t let people speak they simply won’t listen back to us in return. If they already think they’re in a weak arguing position we’ve got to hold back on the value judgments, ease up on the rhetoric, tone down our classic animal-defence-outrage. Not use expletives. Not be seen as being-always-right. And certainly NEVER show contempt. It might make us feel good but that isn’t quite the point. It just isn’t a good look. In our own minds we have to get past calling them names, labelling those who won’t agree as ‘intractable’. Most people have to disagree to save face. They take it all in, what we say. But they don’t want to show it. Privately though, they may need time, to add each new piece of information into their own picture, to build their bigger picture, so they can come to their own conclusions, in their own time. They don’t want to be hurried or cajoled. They don’t want to have to agree just to get us off their back. Or agree when they’re not quite sure. Whoever knows how near change someone might be?
If people seem stubborn is it just because what we’re saying is unfamiliar, and they’re ashamed at being so unfamiliar with it. And what we say, anyway, is difficult to grasp, the implications of it all (you talk to someone about Animal Rights and you can see their minds computing all this new stuff and thinking – “oh, shit!”). It’s as if we’re introducing something as new as a distant planet.
Our job isn’t to recruit them or fight them but to interest them … and for our part it’s got to be personal to the extent that we must seem interested in them. In that way we stand a good chance of being liked, not only for our own part but for what we are saying. Having our views taken seriously.

The BLOG ends here for a week, no access to the Internet working away from home. Blog resumes 12th July.

A delicate balance

It’s a delicate balance, for advocates, to seem laid back and yet to be talking seriously. The laid back part of us wants to say, “I’m willing to listen” because being laid back looks like confidence, meaning we’re sure of our facts and not worried about counter-arguments. By listening to what others have to say we create calm, even amongst ‘hostiles’. Once we stop listening and try the animal rights spiel instead, if we then sound righteous and opinionated most will want to turn off … or there’s a stoush, then abuse, then dislike and then a dislike of what we are saying. For the majority, who routinely use animal foods and by-products, it’s relatively easy to put animal issues out of mind. Safety in numbers. Normally no one challenges. Until a vegan activist comes along. Then what happens? Once they open their mouth, if the vegan becomes pushy and evangelical people are put off for ever - “Once bitten twice shy”, they say. “Avoid vegans”.
Between animal advocates and animal eaters there’s always going to be tension. Life itself is based on tension. Tension is good. But it shouldn’t become emotionally-charged tension. It shouldn’t get personal. Now, since vegans are usually the ones wanting to bring the subject up in conversation it’s up to us to set the standards. It’s we who create the atmosphere by talking about values. We’re the ones who can strike terror into people when we mention values, especially the BIG ones like compassion, kindness, respect, love, etc. And along the lines of practising what we preach we have to be value-consistent, otherwise we are what we accuse others of being - inconsistent.
By being at-one with the people we talk to we show we care about how they are feeling. If we use any of the negatives, like inducing guilt and shame, it isn’t helpful. Talking about the positives may take some time, to get our ideas across, during which time our values are going to be on show. So how we come across is important. In the past advocacy was like a bare knuckle fight, all high emotion, outrage and anger. Today we’re dealing with much more sophisticated people. We merely need a cool hand and a convincing argument. When we use high emotion in our arguments it looks as if we haven’t done our homework properly, as if we are hoping to win our arguments by use of aggression. If we don’t want to lose credibility, the equable approach is safe because it never looks like proselytising.

“Now you listen to me”

It’s likely that, to our leaders and industry’s shareholders, the idea of animal rights is meaningless. For us to be appealing to their better nature would be a waste of time. For us in the Animal Rights Movement it may be better to stick with the consumer. Our job is to convince them they’ve been misinformed, that animal foods are dangerously addictive, unhealthy and expensive.
But try as we might, if people still think they have good arguments for eating animals, then we have our work cut out. Hammering on their doors won’t make them open up. Before we try to make them listen to us, we must listen to them. They need to know that we’re big enough to hear their point of view, if they have one.
The old way of dealing with non-vegans was to contradict what they said, stop them in their tracks and get them to agree. That’s been done once too often and today people are wary; everyone knows a moral argument, everyone’s familiar with the sales pitch. Usually they know what’s coming and have a prepared statement for a stock response.
Advocating, vegan style is as much learning about people as talking about animals. For us it’s valuable to listen, in order to know better who we’re dealing with, what the ingrained attitudes are and where the attitude-holder ‘is at’.
The value of observing people is in finding out from what point of view they might be arguing. Knowing that helps us know what misconceptions are held. Observing is as pro-active as demonstrating, and opening up to what is said (by non-judgmentally letting them speak) we see how they think. If we were jusr jogging along as a vegan and perhaps mixing with other vegans, it would be easy to forget how meat eaters think. Then conversations with them become interesting. They feel okay to say something, even though they may not be absolutely sure it’s true (like meat is good for you) and we feel okay to say something too If we give them space they are more likely to give us space, and then anything could happen. Between us we could even make a few original and spontaneous and even intelligent responses.
Once we have a willing listener they may find a surprise. They may become interested in the subject for its own sake … even if only to be in a better position to challenge us. But why not? We need lots of challenge.

Target consumers, but don’t bash them

When starting to seriously contemplate veganism, as soon as one considers a whole new attitude towards animals, it immediately affects shopping habits. A young vegan woman I knew once told me that people should think of their beloved cats and dogs at home while they strolled down the aisles of the supermarket – it would help them remember similar animals who are not so well loved, notably the ones living on farms.

As vegans, however we approach others we must try to touch their hearts. And once we have succeeded in this they must be given the support they need from us, to help them make the transition from meat eating to plant eating. If we fail to reach them, they won’t think they have anyone they can turn to, and they won’t feel strong enough, without support, to fight for anything different even if they wanted to. And many do want to, because they see the trap people have fallen into; they see how desperately those who depend heavily on animals, how they have an attitude problem –refusing to even consider animals as sentient beings.
The people who are employed by the animal industry, who obviously have the greatest interest in it, the killers, packers, processors, producers and retailers, have to be indifferent towards the feelings of the animals to safeguard their livelihoods. They never think of sparing the feelings of animals anymore than wood chippers think of sparing the forest. If their business fails they will personally be ruined. It is widely thought that the country would be too – that if the animal industries became discredited there would be enormous repercussions to the economy of the nation. For anyone convinced of this, any talk of cruelty to animals must be quashed, ethics mustn’t be allowed to enter into it and farm doors must be kept firmly shut from the public gaze. Since animal farming is still legal and by way of customer loyalty it remains in a numbers-strong position, the industry is still secure. Secure enough, especially when helped along by tame scientists who tell people that “we must eat meat” and spiritual leaders who say that what farmers and vivisectors do to animals is essential and therefore not morally wrong. The customer is sucked in by all this. So many customers that they represent some 95% of all adults in every country of the world. There’s an urgent need for vegans to target the customers of the animal industries, to help reverse their desensitisation and challenge the industry’s misinformation. We never know when a person is ready to make the move, so we need to be ready to be there for them, rather than being ready to bash them.