Schonfeld vs Newkirk

Victor Schonfeld writes in the Guardian:

five fatal flaws of animal activism:

1. Instead of promoting animal rights goals as a major plank within broader social change movements, animal organisations insist on going it alone. Yet the Green party's animal rights goals are as radical as any animal rights organisation's.

2. One of the world's largest animal rights organisations routinely employs naked young women, including porn stars, to chase mass media attention. Would a human rights organisation stoop so low?

3. Animal rights organisations have been handing out awards and lavishing praise on slaughterhouse designers and burger restaurant chains after "negotiations" for small changes that leave the systems of exploitation intact.

4. Instead of animal rights organisations promoting a clear "moral baseline" that individuals should become vegans to curb their own demands for animal exploitation, groups have given their stamp of approval to deeply compromised marketing concepts such as "happy meat", "freedom foods", "sustainable meat", and "conscientious omnivores".

5. Tactics of violence and personal intimidation have at long last fallen out of favour, but activists now pour energy and resources into organisations that lack any real strategy for bringing an end to animal exploitation, whether for food or science.

Number 1, just aint so. Attempts to put animal rights or even welfare on the platforms of political parties has been tried exhaustively, with very few successes, fox hunting in the UK being the only one I can think of, and that after 150 years of trying. Linking animal rights to other rights movements is also problematic, only because other rights groups do not want to associate their movement with ours.

Number 2, intrigues me, why exactly is it stooping low? I completely disagree.
To me human rights organisations peddle images far lower than anything PETA has ever done. Those organisations images are designed to elicit money or support by illuminating and publicly degrading the most vulnerable people for their organisations benefit. Let us not forget these organisations exist on funds generated by public appeals designed to make money from misery. The images of poor, homeless, starving, tortured, frightened, scarred people that grace the publicity materials of human aid and human rights groups are far more low. They project suffering as virtue, and seek your money from shame and guilt. Is this not the lowest. To me it is far lower than pandering to sex.
The image of a semi-nude semi-celebrity (or porn star) asking you not to wear fur, or to spey your pet for PETA is in no way worse than the pornography of want displayed by human centred organisations.
I would question also the morality that thinks it is not acceptable to use Sasha Grey (the porn star Schonfeld takes exception to) in an advert as opposed to any other professional or 'celebrity' as though porn stars were somehow less worthy of consideration as human beings.

Numbers 3&4, all animal rights groups are clear on their final demands, including PETA, which are a complete end to all animal exploitation for food, clothing and other unnecessary ends. Getting there is the thing, some organisations believe incremental steps are the way to go. See Newkirk's response citing Peter Singer's utilitarian stance linked below.
Also actually there are few or no animal rights organisations that do promote the 'happy meat' concept, the organisations that do support this are animal welfare groups, which are a completely different thing. Animal welfare groups do not even promote vegetarianism, and as such may not be the enemy but are also not part of the solution.

Number 5, well what strategy is being offered here. The 'by any means necessary' camp of animal liberationists have indeed stopped activity. Let us never pretend however that animal rights were not significantly advanced in the scientific, cosmetic and clothing industries by the actions of dedicated liberationists prepared to risk very long periods of imprisonment for their actions.



The PETA image of the multi-talented Sasha Grey, that Schonfeld objects to.

If you look at me and you think, here’s a woman who’s intelligent, cognizant and making her own choices, and you still tell me that what I’m doing is wrong, screw you, because that should end the debate.

Sasha Grey in Rolling Stone magazine


Ingrid Newkirk writing in response in the Guardian defends the use of whatever works:

As for the sexy women in our ads, the silly costumes, the street tableaux and the tofu sandwich give-aways, in a world where people want to smile, can't resist looking at an attractive image and are up for a free meal, if such harmless antics will allow one individual to reconsider their own role in exploiting animals, how can it be faulted? Yes, Peta could restrict its activities to scientific work, but how often do you read of that in the papers? It could just hand out lengthy tracts about ethics, but how many people would stop and take one, let alone read it? Any peaceful action that opens eyes, hearts and minds should be commended, not condemned.

P.S.

Wow, also, but what is most amazing about this newspaper exchange is the comments on the website. Over 90% are rabidly anti-vegetarian and anti-animals in general, with no insight at all on the issues. I have previously had it drawn to my attention that the Guardian’s Comment is Free section commentators are taken solely from the angry and the insane, and if you look at any comment area where the discussion is Israel you will see what I mean.


P.P.S.

I lived in the same apartment as Schonfeld for a time whilst he was working on The Animals Film, he played the album Remain in Light by the Talking Heads almost constantly, literally, just saying..