IFA using sheep in city centre protest

by mick Wed Dec 03, 2008 03:30

Its only a sheep, its lucky its not floating in the sewers :p

by Baaaaq Wed Dec 03, 2008 07:12

Why should we protest? As long as the temporarily penned sheep are being fed and watered it's like coralling sheep, with the aid of a sheepdog, into a pen for sheep dipping them against diseases.
The Irish Farmers Association has in past years in December donated cattle and sheep to the city of Dublin in the form of a manger constructed and located at the entrance to the Mansion House, with straw bedding and statue figures of Mary, Joseph and shepherds and (I don't remember exactly) figures of the wise kings paying their respects to the new-born baby. These animals have been fed and watered carefully for the duration. Passersby have enjoyed the display at the seasonal time. I understand the city authorities have disposed of the fattened animals, while the IFA has dismantled the wooden and straw-baling structure with its canvas covered roofing.

I treat with scepticism any organisation arrogating to itself a grand Animal Rights title and arrogating to itself the task of 'speaking on behalf of' the silent animals it purports to champion. If these people think the sheep are being illtreated let them hire a veterinary surgeon to carry out an inspection and write a report.

by w. - none Wed Dec 03, 2008 13:06

Do you have nothing better to do than harrass farmers and champion the cause of every animal in the country?

by pat c - Anti Farmer Action Wed Dec 03, 2008 13:40

On previous demos farmers have abused animals.Once they tried to force a terrified sheep through the railings of Leinster House. During another protest they threw a sheep at a receptionist in the Department of Agriculture. Funnily enough these thugs weren't charged with either assault or cruelty to animals.

On yet another one of their barbarian style descents on Dublin they flooded the city centre with manure smeared tractors. Many of these tractors had no tax discs or the discs were out of date but the gardai took no action.

If you see farmers abusing animals then report it to the gardai, phone the Joe Duffy show, make a fuss! Dont let the farmers away with savagery.

by zeno Wed Dec 03, 2008 14:10

Sheep should be in fields, with room to roam around and grass to eat. They are occassionaly penned up, but never for this long in these conditions.

They are easily spooked and keeping them in a pen on a city street is obviously unsuitable. The fact that the IFA are saying they are going to keep them there for many weeks if necessary is a serious problem too.

The strange exampkle given above of sheep used in a Christmas tableau can be easily dismissed. Would you volunteer to play the part of the human shepherd and stay there for the duration? Would anyone with any self-respect?

by singing lemon Wed Dec 03, 2008 19:47

what evidence ( links) do you have that IFA are saying they are 'going to keep them there for many weeks if necessary '?

by zeno Wed Dec 03, 2008 20:33

Let's see now- er, yesterday's paper- (which I found by Googling "IFA sheep". Ah d'internet, it's terrific. You should try it):

IFA intensify ewe payment protest

By Declan O'Brien and Majella O'Sullivan

Tuesday December 02 2008

The IFA has vowed to intensify its campaign to secure a ewe maintenance payment for sheep farmers.

Lamb producers have been protesting outside the Department's headquarters in Dublin since last week and the association has insisted that members will remain there until movement on the payment is agreed. http://www.independent.ie/farming/news-features/ifa-int....html

by ann unmanageable Wed Dec 03, 2008 23:38

these sheep have been held in this tiny pen for a week now barely room to turn .Sickening.

by Caroline Thu Dec 04, 2008 13:53

Farmers are not and should not be above the law . I don’t think that farmers are using tractors on this particular demonstration ,but if they do so at some point in the future , and if a member of the public sees a tax disc out of date or not being displayed on any of their vehicles ,a note of the tractor registration number should be made and the gardai informed.
Simlarly , if a member of the public sees an animal being abused by a farmer , he or she should make a note of the incident and contact the gardai at their earliest possible convenience . Call in to your local garda station ,and have a word with the desk sergeant . (You never know , he or she may be a vegetarian lol !)
If for any reason that’s inconvenient , the gardai have a FreePhone number which allows you to leave information confidentially on a voice recorder .The Garda Confidential number is:
1800 666 111

by Passingthrough Thu Dec 04, 2008 14:22

The fact that you "proceeded to argue with the people there, and then made a number of calls to the ISPCA, DSPCA, IFA, Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Division and the Gardai - all of which didn't result to much" should tell you something in itself. If the appropriate authorities did not feel that the IFA had a case to answer in this situation, then how can you claim to know better than all these associations in terms of animal welfare?

The sheep seem to be sheltered, have plenty of fresh bedding, water and food. If it's the noise you are worried about, how then do you feel about sheep in fields adjacent to motorways or busy roads? Surely they would be exposed to as much traffic, if not more, and no-one is crying fowl about these animals?

Why on earth do you think any farmer would think it's ok to harm any one of his animals? They are, after all, his livelihood and it would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot by harming your own livestock.

Then again, there are people out there who will protest and hand out leaflets at the drop of a hat, without knowing the full situation or story, but go off on their own tangent thinking they know better than anyone else involved. Perhaps this is just one of those situations.

by Farmergal Thu Dec 04, 2008 15:21

What is "barbarian" about taking to the streets in protest? Just because these are rural people, it does not mean you are entitled to look down your nose at them and call them barbarians. They have as much right to protest as you do! I would remind you that Ireland is very much a rural committee, and I'm sure if you looked not too far back in your own family tree, you'd find your family had one or two wellies stuck in the mud as well. There's a whole "manure streaked" countryside outside The Pale y'know!

And how do you know for certain that "many of these tractors had no tax discs or the discs were out of date" ? Did you yourself climb up on to each and every tractor in Dublin city that day and inspect their tax disc? If not, then you are hardly qualified to make such an outlandish comment!

by pat c Thu Dec 04, 2008 16:06

The barbarism I was referring to was the way farmers treat animals. Are you defending the fact that farmers threw sheep at at receptionists and tried to force sheep through the railings of Leinster House.

Yes, the tractors were manure splattered and many did not have tax discs let alone insurance. Thats not just my obsevation: it was covered in the media at the time. One law for farmers, another law for everyone else.

Indeed I have rural ancestors. But thats about as relevant as pointing out that I also have Belgian ancestors. It doesnt mean that I have to agree with farmers abusing animals. Nor does it follow that I should agree with farmers putting their hands in the pocket of PAYE taxpayers yet again.

by 2-ra-rooralist - Ewe-2 Fri Dec 05, 2008 00:34

Ewe maintenance, wife maintenance, it comes to the same in the end...

by Catlady Fri Dec 05, 2008 01:43

"I treat with scepticism any organisation arrogating to itself a grand Animal Rights title and arrogating to itself the task of 'speaking on behalf of' the silent animals it purports to champion. If these people think the sheep are being illtreated let them hire a veterinary surgeon to carry out an inspection and write a report."

Many vets, indeeed any decent one, would agree that it is not in a sheeps best interests to be corralled in a pen, in Dublin city, for any length of time. Sure it won't kill them, but it'll certainly stress tham and make them unhappy. (as it would a human, dog, cat, horse, or any other mammal.) One does not need a vet to establish this fact. One simply needs a simple knowledge of sheep, which Laura Broxton has. In fact, one simply needs to not be an idiot.......

"Do you have nothing better to do than harrass farmers and champion the cause of every animal in the country?" Like what??????????????????????

"If the appropriate authorities did not feel that the IFA had a case to answer in this situation, then how can you claim to know better than all these associations in terms of animal welfare? "

That is easy to answer. The "appropriate authorities" rarely do anything. Your average gard for example knows feck all about sheep, and in Dublin is too busy doing other stuff like fighting drugs etc. Not that I am speaking for Laura as I am not. However, as an example, I recently contacted my local SPCA regarding my neighbour beating the crap out of his pup. They did nothing. Does that make it ok? Charities are overwprked and lack funding whilst the establishment regards the living as property, incapable of suffering. Would you trust either with the "welfare" of your child????

"Why on earth do you think any farmer would think it's ok to harm any one of his animals? They are, after all, his livelihood and it would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot by harming your own livestock." Eh..........they actually kill them. Which, by any standards constitutes harm to an individual. Honestly........

"
Then again, there are people out there who will protest and hand out leaflets at the drop of a hat, without knowing the full situation or story, but go off on their own tangent thinking they know better than anyone else involved. Perhaps this is just one of those situations. "

And perhaps you have failed to understand that Laura (the author) and the other protestors are animal rights activists. Google AR philosophy. You might learn something. This "drop of a hat" notion you have come up with is cheap and displays your own ignorance of the issues and thinking at hand. Rights and welfare(ie: keeping aive so one can be useful to another) are entorely different trains of thought.

"They have as much right to protest as you do!" - I agree. And they have as little right to abuse others as city folk do also.

"Ireland is very much a rural committee," I was not aware that I lived in a committee. I thought it was a country/republic (in the loosest sense of the word)/democracy or whatever..... Interesting to see it described as a committtee however......

"I'm sure if you looked not too far back in your own family tree, you'd find your family had one or two wellies stuck in the mud " - My wellies are still stuck in the mud. I'm from Laoise and live in Co. Galway. Bloody muck everywhere..... but I like it that way.

"Ewe maintenance, wife maintenance, it comes to the same in the end...." Very well said. It does indeed.

By the way..... "if a member of the public sees an animal being abused by a farmer , he or she should make a note of the incident and contact the gardai at their earliest possible convenience ." No he/she should not. They should grab the nearest heavy b;unt object and clobber said farmer over head.

Seriously though.... Farmer or not I see no reason why anyone should be allowed to abuse non-human animals for their own gain. Believe me when I say that I do not care what your profession is. You can be a doctor, farmer, teacher, plumber..... Nobdy is exempt from the moral obligation to not hurt others.

This is not a "pick on farmers" article. If you look at other articles by Laura you will see she tackles issues, not professions. Farmers here obviously feel attacked as they know they have something to hide...... or a reason to justify their ill-treatment of other animals. Shame on them and all animal abusers!

by pat c Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:17

The DSPCA have made it clear that they are concerned about the welfare of the sheep but they are powerless to intervene.

Animal rights group wants sheep off street

THE DUBLIN Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has called for the removal of 22 sheep from pens outside the Department of Agriculture where a protest by sheep farmers has been continuing for 10 days.

It said it had sent an inspector to the site and found the sheep were being fed and watered but should not be placed in an urban environment like Kildare Street.

"We do not have the legal power to have them removed but if we had, we would do it immediately," said Jimmy Cahill, general manager of DSPCA. He said the society had received "many, many calls" from the public asking what it was doing about the sheep.

Irish Times 5 December 2008

by Cian Fri Dec 05, 2008 14:56

I fully understand the motivations of those objecting to this protest (and I agree completely that this is an unacceptable form of protest). But I am disappointed that the arguments and actions suggested focus on the "welfare" of the sheep and that the farmers are "mistreating" their "property".

Thus we see responses defending the farmers action on welfare lines:
---------------------------
"The sheep seem to be sheltered, have plenty of fresh bedding, water and food. If it's the noise you are worried about, how then do you feel about sheep in fields adjacent to motorways or busy roads? Surely they would be exposed to as much traffic, if not more, and no-one is crying fowl about these animals?

Why on earth do you think any farmer would think it's ok to harm any one of his animals? They are, after all, his livelihood and it would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot by harming your own livestock"
-----------------------------

The logic of the second paragraph here shows quite clearly that the interests of the sheep cannot be taken into consideration except insofar as damage caused to the sheep would affect the farmers ability to profit from the use of the animals. The idea of property that has "interests" that should be respected is incoherent. If the property owner has a particular "use" in mind for the animal, then only actions that impact on his/her ability to use the animal in the manner that they wish to, will be considered as anyway relevant.

I have 2 queries for an animal rights organisation that objects to this protest :

(1) Why pick this particular "use" of animals as objectionable?
Surely the routine and unnecessary slaughter of millions of sheep is a much bigger issue than 22 sheep in a pen in the middle of a city?
Is this an opportunistic attack, because the exploitation of the sheep are so "visible" to city dwellers?

(2) Why focus exclusively on the "welfare" of the animals rather than emphasising that this is what happens when animals are regarded as property - they can and will be used as tools in political struggles, and indeed thats probably the least of the exploitation that will happen to them? Where is the condemnation of the "USE" of sentient nonhumans per se, rather than this exclusive concern with "treatment" and welfare.

The law and society allows sentient nonhumans to be owned and used as property. Even if these sheep were treated like royalty, animal rights supporters should not regard this as an acceptable form of protest.

by Sheepy - Sheep 4 Ireland Fri Dec 05, 2008 22:42

As a spokes sheep for the protest. I would like to say that we went voluntarily. Thank you for your concern.

by hud hastings Sat Dec 06, 2008 00:34

Is that the view of ewe all?

by Wooley Sat Dec 06, 2008 06:40

Reminds me of a Guinness advert that appeared in a literary magazine showing two sheep. One says to the other: "Am I the ewe Guinness is good for?"

by Sheephy - Sheep 4 Ireland Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:44

I don't think I appreciate your ewe-phemisms, you sexist sheep. Irish Sheep have achieved a gender equal society, it is hard to tell by looking which one is male or female. That is equality by bi-pedal friend.

by Hud Hastings Sun Dec 07, 2008 00:26

There's no need to ram the point home.

by black sheep Sun Dec 07, 2008 01:06

There's too much woolly thinking on some indymedia threads.

Ref: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woolly%2...nking

by Catlady Sun Dec 07, 2008 02:07

"Even if these sheep were treated like royalty, animal rights supporters should not regard this as an acceptable form of protest"

I'm not sure what end of the stick you have gotten here, but I agree with all the points you have made, except for one thing.... If you reread the posats I think you will find that AR supporters are entirely of the same opinion as yourself! I certainly never conceded that these sheep were property and have argued as many points as I have had time to. Laura, in her original post, certainly did not refer to welfar or property, and I know that she does not think of other earthlings in this speciesist way!

Anyone who refers to property or welfare is most certainly not coming from an animal rights standpoint. But the author of this piece certainly is AR. As am I. I think there has been some misunderstanding.....!

by mick Sun Dec 07, 2008 15:18

"Are you defending the fact that farmers threw sheep at at receptionists and tried to force sheep through the railings of Leinster House."

Its funny and a brilliant way to protest, would you mind if they threw a sheep at biffo and knocked him out?

by lambkin Sun Dec 07, 2008 16:48

It would want to be a big fuckin sheep to knock him out.

by Catlady Mon Dec 08, 2008 01:33

Hi Catlady,
I take your points. I agree that the original post did not mention property or welfare. But I would argue that in fact the point should always be explicitly made in incidents like this that it is the USE of the animals which is the problem, and although certainly we should show concern for their welfare, the fact that the sheep are being USED at all is problematic, regardless of the treatment which they are given. I would prefer to see NARA and other animal rights groups explicitly condemning the USE of animals as being indefensible. Although the post did not mention welfare specifically, the context in which it was given certainly gave the impression that the welfare of the sheep was the primary issue - for example the post suggested that we contact :

Irish Farmers Association (An spokesgroup for animal exploiters)
ISPCA: (An animal welfare group)
DSPCA: (An animal welfare group)
Department of Agriculture: ( A state department responsible for regulating and administering animal exploitation)

No guidelines were given in the post as to what people should say when contacting the above organisations about this issue. Now, given the nature of these organisations, how likely is it that people will contact them demanding that we cease to use sentient nonhumans exclusively for our own purposes? - that would include the way these sheep have been used in this protest but also the end of animal agriculture and the abolition(not regulation) of animal exploitation. Will the IFA hear your argument as regards the necessity of ending the animal exploitation industries!!?! I think not!

Obviously anyone contacting these groups and giving these opinions will at best be ignored and more likely laughed off the phone. The most likely thing people will do is to contact these organisations and argue about "mistreatment" of the sheep - which is a very different issue. Indeed, animal exploiters may even have good arguments that they are not "mistreating" the sheep within the boundaries that they themselves set for what is regarded as "acceptable" treatment. Considering their business is to actually kill the sheep, you can make a reasonable guess at what level of treatment will be regarded as "acceptable"!! You cannot win an argument about treatment that is premised on sheep being regarded as property - only if the farmers interests are actually damaged by the treatment will you actually have any success - which is great if you want to make animal exploitation more efficient!

Basically, I think once you concede the argument over the use of the sheep as being unacceptable (or at least fail to explicitly denounce it) you leave the issue open to welfarists and people who argue about whether the farmers are treating the sheep well or not. This is nonsense and animal rights supporters are conceding the point if they refuse to argue about use and instead devolve to talking about treatment. Its not that the treatment of the sheep does not matter, its that the USE of the sheep per se is problematic and should not be defended (or ignored) by animal right supporters).

Finally, it should always be emphasised that the PRIMARY use of sentient nonhumans in our society is for food, and that there is absolutely no necessity ( or moral defensibility) to this. We would likely not even be arguing over these sheep if this primary use were ended. The logical step for anyone seeking to end animal exploitation is to go vegan and to help convince others to do so also.

Going Vegan (Webpage) : http://www.vegan.org/going_vegan/index.html

Becoming Vegan Book :- http://books.google.ie/books?id=R7FRvTyRF0cC&dq=becomin...esult

by nonveg Mon Dec 08, 2008 07:05

The proposition that we should stop eating meat is utopian.

by Cian Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:34

The proposition that we continue exploiting animals is indefensible.

Since you describe as "utopian" the suggestion that people stop eating meat, I presume that you think that it would be a good thing if it happened but for whatever reason, people are not going to do it.

Firstly, I was not suggesting that people stop eating "meat", I was suggesting that we stop using animals for human purposes - that includes not just the use of animals for food but also for other uses such as entertainment or as domesticated companions.Distinguishing between meat and dairy products as a moral matter is not coherent.

I would be interested to hear your reasoning as to why you think people will not stop eating meat. The simple fact of the matter is that many people do stop eating meat, there's nothing "impossible" or "utopian" about it - it's just a matter of changing an ingrained habit.

I agree, some people may never stop using animal products - but that is no reason to stop arguing for it, firstly because its the morally responsible thing to do (just as no-one argues that we should formally cease any opposition to US Army use of Shannon because the government will never give in to our wishes in that matter), and secondly since there are many other people who would be willing to stop using animal products and campaign for the ending of animal exploitation once they hear good arguments which deal with the issues.

by Cian Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:59

At many occasions in human history it must have seemed like the abolition of human slavery was "utopian". Indeed there were many at the time who were willing to argue that case. There's always been people willing to argue that progressive changes in society are "utopian". Certainly it gives you a ready-made excuse for inaction!

Every effort by left activists of all kinds is directed at making changes that will result in a better world. Anyone taking practical action to bring a better world closer to realisation is open to the challenge of "utopianism".

A large majority of indymedia posts are premised on the idea that popular struggle and ethically grounded resistance and revolt can bring about a better society. Veganism and the abolition of animal exploitation are no more utopian than any one of the many objectives envisioned by anarchist and socialist thinkers throughout history.

by Laura Broxson - National Animal Rights Association Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:45 naracampaigns at gmail dot com PO Box 11019, Dublin 2

First of all, I think you're getting all worked up over nothing. We are an animal RIGHTS group, and don't believe in welfarism.

Yes, the DSPCA, ISPCA & Dept. of Agriculture are unlikely to do anything (because they honestly don't care) - but, if the likes of us pester them enough with complaints, we might get a result.

Again, with the IFA, they're the ones organising it, so of course what we think isn't going to affect them. BUT! If their phone lines/email accounts get blocked up with complaints every day, they'll think twice before doing it again - it's a tactic SHAC (http://www.shac.net ) use all the time.

Would you prefer it if we did nothing?

When I was arguing with the farmers, I did point out that even if they weren't using sheep at the protest, I'm still disgusted by them and see them as horrible individuals because they kill animals every day anyway. When I made complaints, I didn't just speak about the welfare of the animals, I spoke of how the IFA had no right to use the sheep for their protest.

We campaign for veganism every week - and our main approach with all of our campaigns is RIGHTS based arguments. Facts (take vivisection for example), are only secondary tactics.

It never ceases to amaze me how individuals who complain about us, what we do, how we do things etc, have all day to write critiques, but have probably never been on a protest in their life.

by Cian Mon Dec 08, 2008 15:59

Laura,
I never said you weren't an animal rights group. All I was saying is that I disagree with your emphasis on contacting welfare organisations or animal exploitation spokesgroups and the lack of an explicit denunciation of the property status of animals in the post. I disagree with your TACTICS, even though we are in agreement with regards to a principled opposition to animal exploitation.

It is disappointing to me that your response to those who disagree with your tactics is an ad hominem attack, claiming (with no evidence whatsoever) that I have never been on a protest. As if whether I had ever been on protest or not makes any difference to the validity of my argument.

For your information I have been on plenty of protests, distributed much political literature, manned stalls, chaired and organised meetings, and much other political work as anyone who knows me will be happy to attest. You should be careful making assumptions about people you don't know and have never met. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my arguments but as a debating tactic, attacking my personal level of political activity does nothing to advance your case or build the credibility of yourself or your organisation.

You mention that SHAC have used a particular tactic - (clogging up phone/e-mail lines with complaints) seemingly to suggest that it is therefore worthwhile for us to use it. SHAC are hardly a model organisation whose tactics are worth imitating - these are people that are happy to engage in car bombings of workers, intimidation of their relatives and even digging up graves of workers relatives. The same goes for the ALF and others whose tactics you have agreed (at least privately to me) are worthy of support. The fact that SHAC and others "won" campaigns using such tactics is likewise irrelevant to whether those tactics are defensible or not. The end does not justify the means. These organisations lack of concern for the human suffering they cause is typical of the anti-human thinking and "by any means necessary" moral quagmire that many animal rights groups become mired in.

I see no reason to respond to your strawman : "Would you prefer it if we did nothing?" I have nowhere suggested any such thing - in fact my posts argue directly the opposite.

I see that in arguing with the farmers you said "I'm still disgusted by them and see them as horrible individuals". This is exactly the problem - you are not just saying that the actions of animal exploiters are morally indefensible - you are saying that they are actually BAD PEOPLE. This is more ad hominem argument. Needless to say, you are unlikely to convince anyone of the case for animal rights while you continue to condemn them as "horrible individuals".

>Facts (take vivisection for example), are only secondary tactics.

I'm not sure what you meant here. Taken literally, this is absurd. Facts should not be secondary to any argument, nor can facts be considering "tactics" by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you had meant to talk about single-issue campaigns - i.e. against vivisection, fur or foie gras.

Although I admit your organisation does engage with vegan education and campaigning (and I commend you fully and completely for it), there also seems to be a focus on single-issue campaigns, like vivisection, fur and foie gras. This is problematic as it suggests that some forms of animal exploitation are worse than others, and that while some should be virulently opposed, others are not really that much of a big deal. For instance, NARA does not have a single-issue campaign against leather or wool. Choosing a particular use of animals and campaigning around it inevitably gives the impression to the public that some uses of animals are wrong and should stop but others are OK (or at least not that bad) and should continue. For more on the failure of the single issue campaign, see this article by Bob Torres : http://blog.veganfreak.com/blog_entries/view/the_failur...8:05Z

Finally, just because I disagree with you tactically does not mean I do not regard your organisation as part of the animal rights movement, or that I do not think you do good work or that you do not care about animals. I think NARA does do very good work in bringing animal exploitation to public attention and I commend you for it. But you cannot dismiss my arguments over your tactics by using ad-hominem attacks or strawmen pretending that I'm suggesting that animal advocates "do nothing".

by pat c Mon Dec 08, 2008 17:30

They have departed from outside of the Dept Agriculture. hopefully for good.

Hmmm, I'm thinking of the film Blacksheep. Amaybe the sheep will savage the farmers on the way home.

by Jacqueline Fallon Mon Dec 08, 2008 19:29

I believe the sheep are on a rota and are being rotated, like the ones in the holy Crib outside the Mansion House, so, I am not worried about them at all. I saw one farmer conversing with one and feeding another under the watchful eye of two Gardaí - who strangely, did not threaten to arrest them all for breaching the Criminal Justice Public Order Act, 1994 & 2003, etc. baaah, baa baaah., as other placid protestors have been for just standing with a placard (like me!).

Anyway, the sheep here fair much better than the average protestor. In recent times, I have witnessed members of An Garda Síochána set up pens for corralling ant-war protestors - at the time, I thought all that was absent was a bit of hay! Yes, the sheep here fair much better, indeed, at least they are fed and watered and not threatened with arrest.

The farmers will, probably, be back tomorrow with the unslaughtered pigs and my best wishes to them all.

by Catlady Mon Dec 08, 2008 23:59

Cian, perhaps the point was not explicitly made because it is generally understood in AR circles that we are dealing with rights, not welfare. Any NARA supporter will certainly be aware of the distinction.

To your comment about being laughed off the phone, I was about to say exactly what Laura has already replied - that if their phones are consistently blocked (along with fax and email) they soon start to pay attention. I really don't care if people talk/mail/fax them AR arguments, welfare ones. ot vegan bun recipes, so long as their business is disrupted and they are forced to think twice. I certainly have no problem with being laughed at. The longer I keep them laughing the less real work killing they are doing!

Not speaking for NARA at all, but I do have to say that I feel it is very relevant whether or not a eprson has activist experience. It is through activism, making mistakes and learning from them, that chage is made. You admit yourself that the Dept of Ag is not going to do anything! If not for experienced activists (like NARA) then how do you propose change?

I respect and share all your AR views. However I feel that you are very dismissive of a group who has had enormous success in Ireland (despite what you think of their tactics). I also feel that you are too dismissive of the role that has (unfortunately) to be played by middle-of-the road thinkers. Without the reformists, we are lost. It is an unfortunate fact that the world will not change overnight. AR push the welfarists into action..... that's the way I see it. Welfarists have some power, we have none. We are utopian, but realistically we are not going to get there alone. Even with a declaration of violent nrevolution, there simply are not enough of us.... We need to wear them down, by all means possible.

That is my opinion. Incidentally, I flagged your post (before reading it) as I saw it was a post written by myself, which I had not written. I am sure this was a mistake, but please be careful! Thank you

by Cian Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:27

Hi Catlady,
The problem is we are not having a debate in "rights circles", nor are indymedia or these posts read solely by animal rights supporters. Surely the objective of any animal rights organisation is to win other people to our arguments? Surrounded as we are by speciesism and welfarist ideas and concepts, if you do not explicitly reject the property status of animals and call for their right not to be used to be respected, the message that comes across will be that some particular forms of animal exploitation are more acceptable than others, and there is not really any problem with "use" per se.

For instance, if NARA see's no distinction between fur and wool or leather (and there is no morally significant difference), why is there only a single-issue campaign around fur and not wool or leather?

If these posts are only meant to speak to NARA supporters, why not just use a mailing list? As far as I can see, the whole point of using indymedia is to get your message across to a wider audience many of whom may not be supportive of animal rights positions but who will thereby become aware of the animal rights position and arguments.

You had posted: "I feel it is very relevant whether or not a eprson has activist experience". That is not to the point - you have taken what I said out of context - what I said was that the validity of my argument has nothing to do with whether I have any activist experience or not. And I stand by that. Whether I have been on thousands of protests or never been on a single one in my life is not relevant to whether the points I made are valid or not, and as far as contructive argument is concerned, the insinuation is an ad hominem attack.

You go on to say : "If not for experienced activists (like NARA) then how do you propose change?" This is a strawman - You are implying that I am rejecting grassroots activism or that somewhere I had said that it was not important. That is not what I had said. In fact i had explicitly stated that people should " help convince others to do so also." (go vegan). So I was actually explicity calling for active vegan educational activism. As a political activist myself, for me to take a position opposing social activism would be truly bizarre.

You wrote:
"I feel that you are very dismissive of a group who has had enormous success in Ireland (despite what you think of their tactics)."

But I did not dismiss them! What I said was that I had a problem with their tactics. Despite what you have written, tactics are VERY important to pursuing any goal.

For example, if somehow a lethal virus arose which was very contagious but could only be passed on by individuals of a particular ethnicity (for genetic reasons lets say), our tactics could be either to (1) quarantine members of the group and vaccinate them as needed or (2) begin the "final solution" and start to slaughter all members of that ethnic group.

Either approach will "work" in terms of it giving us the desired result of eliminating the virus - but one is morally defensible, and the other is not. NARA are happy to condone actions by the ALF and SHAC which I regard as morally indefensible because they seemingly have no problem with attacking or abusing workers and their relatives as tactics to achieve their goals. I think this is problematic - I am not dismissing them as a group for it but it is NOT something I would support and I don't think a groups choice of tactics is irrelevant, in fact I think its crucial that the means matches the ends. The end should never justify the means.

You had posted:
"Without the reformists, we are lost."...."AR push the welfarists into action..... that's the way I see it. Welfarists have some power, we have none."

I have to disagree quite strongly. It should not be the job of animal rights advocates to push welfarists into "action". "Action" by welfarists very often results in greater efficiencies and higher levels of animal exploitation.

With the advent of organic and "free-range" eggs, milk and beef, more people are going back to eating meat and other animal products in the belief that they are making a more "humane" choice and that the animals that died for their meal did not suffer. This is nonsense. More good information on the real background to these "happy meat" products can be found at: http://www.humanemyth.org/

The idea that only welfarists have "power" shows a difference in our understandings of power. It is certainly true that welfarist organisation have a lot more money and "paper members" willing to help their causes. But that does not automatically mean that they are improving the situation of animals or reducing the level of their exploitation. Nor does it mean that "we", the animal rights supporters are powerless. You might as well say that the working class has no "power" because we do not have capital or political power. But the working class has the means within itself to overthrow the existing social order and to construct a more equitable society - in fact, the whole apparatus of capitalism depends on the working class working and oiling the gears. Once we stop, the machine stops!

The same goes for animal rights activists - we may not have a huge amount of money or political power, but we can work at a grassroots level and build fundamental social change from the bottom-up, which is really the only sensible way to approach it since we need to change the way society thinks about animals and this can't be done with top-down approaches - be they changing laws that are never fully implemented or watered down to be totally ineffective, or by proposing welfare improvements that only serve to make animal exploitation more efficient and profitable. For example, PETA made a big deal of their campaign for CAK(controlled atmosphere killing), which would involve killing the chickens by gassing instead of by decapitation. This was hailed as a great success. Which it was! For the animal exploiters! , who achieved a more efficient and profitable method of slaughtering chickens!

There may not be "enough of us" animal rights activists, but perhaps there is a reason for that? Perhaps animal advocates have been pursuing the wrong goals and the wrong tactics for far too long? Perhaps our arguments have been a little weak? We've had animal welfare laws and reforms for nearly 200 years and we are exploiting animals today in greater numbers and in more horrible ways than at any time in history.

I think the time has come for a change of approach which strikes at the root of the problem - the acceptance that sentient nonhumans can be owned and used as property by human beings. Until the property paradigm is challenged it will be impossible to implement substantive improvements in the welfare of nonhuman animals.

My opposition to speciesism and animal exploitation is part of my principled opposition to hierarchy in all social, economic and political forms, which I think gives a more coherent moral baseline than a singular "animal rights" approach, which leaves any organisation open to the accusation that they "only care about nonhuman animals".
Some animal rights activists do indeed seem to care more about nonhumans animals than humans! - take the infamous Jerry Vlasek for example : "I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many … I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives."

These are some of the reasons why I wouldn't join an animal rights organisation like NARA , I guess they probably wouldn't have me now anyways! :) but would prefer to pursue animal rights activism within an anti-capitalist, anti-hierachical framework which includes not just nonhumans but humans within the scope of its concerns AND its activism.

You posted:
>We need to wear them down, by all means possible.
Thats fine, what I have a problem with is any suggestion that we pursue animal rights by "ANY" means possible. :)

You had posted:
"We are utopian, but realistically we are not going to get there alone"
Well I'm sorry I don't feel that defeatist about it - I think the animal rights approach is the correct one, I think we CAN get to abolition and whats more I don't think welfarist reform is EVER going to get us there. The rights position is the most coherent and defensible and I have no problems with people accusing me of being "utopian" - thats something anyone who fights for a better world gets, it doesnt bother me in the least - nor does being laughed at by the IFA as you say :) , but I don't think we should support welfare reforms or fail to explicitly state in our activism that "use" is the problem, not "treatment". I'm sorry if I come across as being dismissive, I assure you I'm not, but I think an organisation should be willing to take a bit of constructive criticism without resorting to ad hominem attacks and misreprenting what I'm saying.

On a final note, yes I got a bit befuddled with one of those posts above and wrote in your name in the author field by accident. Sorry about that. Hopefully an editor might correct it. Hope I haven't offended you or anything, I don't mean to, I just feel quite strongly about the issue! :)
I dont mean anything personally!

by Cian Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:48

An example of how confused even the reputedly knowledgable "liberal" press is about animal rights and welfare is the Irish Times recent article bearing the title : "Animal Rights Group want sheep off street".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1205/1....html

The "Animal Rights" group in question here is actually the "DUBLIN Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals", obviously a welfarist group (they admit so themselves in their about section).

This is a perfect example of why we need to be clearer about the distinctions between animal rights and welfare. If the Irish Times is confused about this, how likely is it that the animal rights position will be understood by those writing and editing The Sun, The Star or the Mirror?

I have written to ask them to issue a correction.

by Animal Magic Tue Dec 09, 2008 20:20

Compared to the vast majority of Pigs and Chickens. Indeed it I had to come back as a farm animal it would be a sheep since the generally have the most pleasent existance before slaughter etc.

by ann unmanageable Wed Dec 10, 2008 00:39

Affraid you were sold a pork pie ! the sheep were never rotated as the farmers declaired.. .

by Pgibson Wed Dec 10, 2008 16:23

A sheep just has to be the dumbest animal in the Galaxy.

I bet even earthworms and cockroaches and oysters are smarter than sheep.

A sheep is so dumb it does not even realize that it itself exists.

A sheep doesn't even know that it is a sheep.

There is thus no need for a "Charter of Sheep Rights."

If you showed such a charter to a sheep it would eat it up and think it was funny tasting grass.
.

by Sheep friend Wed Dec 10, 2008 17:33

Simply because they are so harmless is not an excuse to be cruel to them.

by Jacqueline Fallon Wed Dec 10, 2008 21:21

Chuig: Anne of the Unmanageables

The live animals in the Crib are rotated, so I presumed the sheep were being rotated too. I do not believe the farmers left the sheep outside of the Department of Agriculture all night - that would be highly irresponsible. Anyway, the sheep are not being harmed or traumatised, they looked pretty healthy and content to me anytime I saw them munching away, not a bother in the world on them in these recessionary times (if only I were a sheep). Anyway, if the DSPCA (who I support) did not take any action, there could not be much wrong with the sheep - they would have taken them away immediately if the sheep were in any distress at all.

I wish I was sold a pork pie but, alas, there was none to be had! I can't wait until they put the pork back on the market, and this pork famine is brought finally to an end, with all this talk of pork in recent days, it has made me and I'm sure many others 'pork mad'!

by RogerYates Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:05

Recent research suggests that sheep are not as "dumb" as their eaters would like to imagine...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/clever-boy-sh....html

extract:-

"Sheep are not so dumb after all. New research shows that they self-medicate when they are ill. They can also identify and remember faces, both human and ovine, distinguish between happy and depressed expressions, and tell one sheep's bleating from another.

Scientists have discovered that sick sheep can accurately self-medicate for stomach problems. When sheep were given food than made them unwell, they were able to select and eat the right cures for constipation and heartburn. "People learn to take aspirin for headaches and antacids for stomach aches... Is it also possible that herbivores write their own prescriptions?" ask the researchers."

New research - such as that by cognitive ethologists - is suggesting that nonhuman animals are much more complex and capable than we tend to give them credit for. Of course, when we intend to override and violate rights - human or nonhuman - we often downplay the victims' value and worth.

by Cartoon science Thu Dec 11, 2008 13:10

Yes, sheep ain't so dumb, as cartoon scientist McCracken points out.

http://www.pioneertelephonecoop.com/~mchumor/agricultur....html

by dspcable Thu Dec 11, 2008 21:48

The sheep were not rotated, the same ones were kept there throughout the protest.

The DSPCA had no power to remove the sheep. They said if they had the powers they would have insisted on removing them.

by Pgibson Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:09

So when a sheep says "Baaa Baaa Baaaa Baaaaa" it is really saying:

" A point mass M1 attracts another point mass M2 by a force F2 which is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (R) between them. Regardless of masses or distance, the magnitudes of |F1| and |F2| will always be equal. The constant of proportionality,G,is the gravitational constant."

Sorry for misunderstanding ye sheep.

by RogerYates Fri Dec 12, 2008 19:46

Pgibson. I, like you, do not understand what a sheep says when she says baa baa baa. I, like you, doubt that she says, " A point mass M1 attracts another point mass M2 by a force F2 which is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (R) between them. Regardless of masses or distance, the magnitudes of |F1| and |F2| will always be equal. The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant." Not often anyways...

However, not many human animals say this either - or know what it means. While it is true that the humans rich enough can google the phrase and find out while sheep cannot, what, morally, does it mean - that we can eat those who cannot articulate Newton's laws? No - of course it does not mean that.

Does it mean that those who cannot articulate it are protected by being of the same species as Newton? That does not seem to make sense either.

I think it is important to note and understand in a society saturated in speciesist norms and values that the animal rights case is merely a logical extensionist view with regards to who are rights bearers and who can have their rights violated. As we know, white men used to be the criteria: no so any longer although some will argue that rights remain patriarchal in nature. The moral question the animal rights view of human-nonhuman relations wants us to wrestle with is this: why should only human animals have their rights respected?

by Catlady Sat Dec 13, 2008 04:51

"Surrounded as we are by speciesism and welfarist ideas and concepts, if you do not explicitly reject the property status of animals and call for their right not to be used to be respected, the message that comes across will be that some particular forms of animal exploitation are more acceptable than others, and there is not really any problem with "use" per se."

I agree. However, NARA repeatedly reinforce this message through their numerous posts. I assure you that NARA are most certainly AR. Not welfare.

"
For instance, if NARA see's no distinction between fur and wool or leather (and there is no morally significant difference), why is there only a single-issue campaign around fur and not wool or leather?"

Eh.... there isn't.... in so much as there are "single" issue campaigns about anything...... NARA are not single issue. This particular article is a reaction to the sheep protest situation, and a rightly outrasged one. Should these individuals have been ignored in your opinion? Does the fact that NARA objects mean they think it's ok to exploit other sheep????? Your logic is difficult to follow here. I still see no reason why you find this speciesist.....

Perhaps you are confusing NARA with PETA or ARAN??????? That would make semse to me at this point as Nara are the real deal die hard AR activists! And PETA/ ARAN are not.

"You had posted: "I feel it is very relevant whether or not a eprson has activist experience". That is not to the point - you have taken what I said out of context - what I said was that the validity of my argument has nothing to do with whether I have any activist experience or not. And I stand by that. Whether I have been on thousands of protests or never been on a single one in my life is not relevant to whether the points I made are valid or not, and as far as contructive argument is concerned, the insinuation is an ad hominem attack."

Lord you are hard work lol! I took it in the context you said it. That Nara's tactics were innefective. They are not.(measurable proof available) All tactics are effective in various ways. Some risk their lives, some their phone bills. Human psychoogy is as such, and I thank everyone who does anything!

One tactic that is most certainly inneffective is that of sitting on you arse doing nothing. Or worse... attacking people who risk life limb and freedom to bring about the goals YOU desre, but are too cowardly to even try in the meekest of ways. So YES. Involvement has a role to play (the only role). I will never take seriously a philosopher who has never experienced his problem/thesis. I mean how could you????????

Let me just sit here and pontificate on the health system awhile..... even though I have no experience of it. But you must believe all I say!!!!!!!!

Get a grip. Provide evidence or indy will tear you to shreds.

My point is that while it did not bear on your argument per se, a non activist cannot judge effectively the results of actions on the ground. Reading from a book is not the same as doing it yourself. And the more experience you have in whatever field, the more you learn, evolve and philosophise about the ways in which huaman society exploits animals.

and the crunch comes.....

"NARA are happy to condone actions by the ALF and SHAC which I regard as morally indefensible because they seemingly have no problem with attacking or abusing workers and their relatives as tactics to achieve their goals. I think this is problematic -" ALF and SHAC are by definition non-violent groups. Perhaps you are a victim of "information". Have you met a member of either group on which to base your biased media influenced opinion? Do you simply believe what you read? (IE: Are you thick?) Why do you think they "attack" people?????????? I fully support both. SHAC are a genius organisation and an inspiration to us all as AR activists. As are the ALF. Give me a better tactic (ie: one that will help the victims quicker) and I'll jump at it! As would we all, NARA included

I will reply to the rest of your post at a later date. At a brief glance it seems to be telling me that welfare is better that rights..... tell that to the kids, or the blacks etc

I'd rather have rights. Wouldn't you?
Welfare me arse. That amounts to "I decide what is good for you". which under current law means that lives equal less than coffee tables, that we can kill with impunity, and worse, that it is socially acceptable to do so!

YAY for the last 200 years of welfarism!!!!!!!!! (ahem.....)
And lets let the blacks reproduce!
The non-arians learn music( so they can entertain us of course. We'll gass them after.....)
the women keep a hold of their genitals!!!!!!!!!! (not really needed to make babies after all.........)
The cows keep their babies (cos lets steal their milk......!!

In the meantime, lets all send money to welfare groups. Who in the last 200 years have achieved damn all......!