write away

Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category

Animal agriculture: a triumph of marketing over morality

with one comment

I don’t really like the word ‘morality’. Like ‘evil’, its religious overtones just make me uncomfortable. Both words are often used in a way I feel removes culpability and responsibility from humans and places them firmly in the hands of a higher power. But sometimes, the word just fits better. A triumph of marketing over ethics just doesn’t have the same ring to it. But generally, when I say ‘morality’, I mean ‘ethics’. Just like, when I say ‘evil’, I mean reprehensible action/s by a human being. Because let’s face, in this world at least, only humans are truly ‘evil.’

But I digress. Look at this picture of some egg cartons I took in a local supermarket:

Town and Country eggs. What lovely, lush green farmland. Eggs hand-collected by the basketload by the farmer herself. Free, healthy hens roaming around. I think at least one of those chooks is a rooster. The cozy homestead in the background. This image has it all. This is the idyllic country farm many Australians still like to imagine their food comes from.

But look again. Look at the orange front panel.

12 CAGE EGGS.

Cage eggs. Cage. As in eggs taken from chickens (not by the basket-load I assure you) who spend their entire lives in cages. Chickens that look like this:

Battery hens

There are no roosters in those cages. They are disposed of as soon as they are born.

Why do we continue to fall for the advertising lie? Is it because we know, deep down, when we realise the truth, we will have to act on it?

Written by Ruby

July 12, 2012 at 4:04 am

Treat them like animals…

leave a comment »

…where ‘animals’ is a compliment, not a disparaging term. The good folks over at New Matilda have published my latest piece on the link between animal cruelty and human rights violations. I have found that articles such as this tend not to be as popular as articles that deal with human rights and/or specific instances of animal abuse. My theory is that people are comfortable with calling out injustices when they are committed by other parties, but when it comes to injustices in which we are complicit, well, people tend to be less enthusiastic about even acknowledging them. Anyway, here it is in full. Make up your own mind.

Treat Them Like Animals

By Ruby Hamad

(First published in New Matilda, August 19, 2011)

sheep

Animal rights activists get criticised for siphoning attention away from human rights but the two are connected. It’s not a case of live exports versus the Malaysia Solution, writes Ruby Hamad

Athough Andrew Wilkie was unable to convince MPs to support his bill to ban live animal exports, the issue of animal cruelty continues to weigh heavily on our national conscience.

Even so, the issue of animal rights will not gain real traction as long as it is viewed as completely divorced from, and subordinate to, the issue of human rights.

This was evident in the attempts to shame those who expressed outrage at the footage of the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesian abbatoirs for not showing greater outrage about the suffering of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. Moira Rayner, for example, although expressing sympathy for the tortured cattle asked:

“Does anybody see, other than myself, the dreadful hypocrisy of demanding … interruption to the export of live cattle, and the complete lack of outrage and demand for action to ensure the humane treatment of asylum-seeking, unaccompanied children?”

Similarly, immediately following Four Corners’ expose, an audience member asked the live panel on the ABC’s Q and A:

“While animals are experiencing cruelty and suffering on boats going from Australia to Indonesia, refugees sail past them in the other direction, also in unspeakable conditions. Which story is more likely to generate compassion from the average Australian?”

This question set off a torrent of like-minded comments on Twitter and spread to the mainstream press. SMH blogger, Sam de Brito, lamented that Australians “get in a tizzy about cows being mistreated in Indonesia, but shrug over boat people sliced up on rocks or children going crazy in detention”.  Prominent human rights lawyer, Julian Burnside, will give a talk at the upcoming Festival of Dangerous Ideas entitled “We care more about animals on boats than people”.

These commentators are rightly concerned with the plight of refugees but they unfairly use the issue of asylum seekers to divert attention from the suffering of non-human animals by claiming it is morally defective to be concerned with cattle when there is so much human suffering.

There are two problems with this position.

Firstly, it presumes all those upset at the treatment of cattle don’t also feel the same way about refugees.

Secondly, it overlooks the fact that the same system that permits the oppression of human beings also approves the exploitation of animals. Many of those who advocate for animal rights do so from a position of opposing all suffering which results from that false hierarchy that values some living beings over others.

There is a long history of activists who have made the link between how we treat each other and how we treat non-human animals. One of the earliest, as Animals Australia’s Lyn White has repeatedly pointed out, was British politician William Wilberforce, who spearheaded the abolitionist campaign to end the slave trade and founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

World War I saw the relationship between violence against animals and violence against humans discussed by pacifist, feminist and vegetarian writers such as Henry Bailey Stevens, Agnes Ryan and George Bernard Shaw. An editor of Nineteenth Century and After magazine wrote:

“In 1918 the spectacle of a herd of scared and suffering cattle hustled together in a van, and being conveyed to a slaughter yard, struck (this) writer as being at least as abominable, and as degrading to our civilisation, as anything he had recently witnessed on several hard fighting fronts in France and Italy.”

The implication is clear: violence against animals, whose blood, organs and emotions are so similar to ours desensitises us to violence against humans. Once the mistreatment of animals is rationalised, so too can be the mistreatment of people.

Institutional slavery, genocide, and other injustices occur because people are conditioned to see those who differ from them as somehow lesser — in the same way we see other animals as lesser species. Their “otherness” makes their suffering justifiable. For many centuries, social justice advocates have called for people to focus on similarities between groups rather than differences. And for almost as long their efforts were resisted by a dominant culture that “naturally” saw men as superior to women and whites superior to other races.

This systematic subordination of marginalised groups extends to the animal world. Our fervent belief that animal life is intrinsically inferior has blinded us to the immense pain and suffering they endure at our hands. If the Four Corners footage has shown us anything, it is that animals are as capable of feeling pain and terror as acutely as any human being.

This willingness to inflict such pain on another sentient being not only causes that being to suffer, but devalues both the life of that animal and the humanity of its tormenter. It is the act of violence itself which is problematic — not only the object of that violence . Once violence is accepted as justifiable, then it can justified repeatedly.

There is no shame or hypocrisy in protesting the mistreatment of animals because human rights and animal rights are intertwined. It boils down to this: we too are animals, and as precious as our lives are to us, so too are the lives of non-human animals to them.

 

 

Written by Ruby

August 20, 2011 at 12:25 am

Journalism as endorsement

leave a comment »

This article in today’s Australian, ostensibly an ‘objective’ report on fur’s resurgence in the fashion industry is little more than extended advertisement for the ‘luxury’ item with a dash of good ol’ fearmongering and smearing thrown in.

Catherine Caines wastes no time in letting us know who the enemy is, using the very first line to single out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), for ‘targeting’ fashion designers who work with fur. Although adopting a neutral tone, in keeping with ‘impartial’ journalistic standards, Caines subtly, or not so subtly if you tend to look out for these things firmly casts PETA and other animal rights activists as violent and irrational actors who cause such fear amongst the sartorialists that some who spoke with the journalist chose not “to be named for fear of reprisals from fur protesters”.

Whilst it is true PETA often uses questionable tactics in its anti-animal cruelty crusade, what this article is missing is a truly balanced perspective. Caines will likely claim the ‘balance’ is provided by the contrast between the desires of the ‘edgy’ fashion industry and the aims and actions of PETA, what Caines fails to consider is what the fur industry actually entails. Live skinning, death by electrocution, close confinement, the list goes on. What is clear is that the fur trade continues to be a particularly cruel one.

This omission makes statements such as this

Baker says fur’s big comeback reflects consumers’ confidence about breaking rules.

“Emotionally, there is something decadent and slightly forbidden about fur that makes the experience of wearing it very luxurious,” Baker says.

all the more gobsmacking.

Written by Ruby

July 28, 2011 at 5:13 am

Overpopulation. It’s coming.

leave a comment »

A brilliant article in the Guardian by Robert Engelman about the coming 7 billion population milestone. The article briefly the very reasons I have turned to a vegan, and largely local, diet. There are simply to many of us to sustain any other way of living in the long term:

It is precisely because our population is so large and growing so fast that we must care, ever more with each generation, how much we as individuals are out of sync with environmental sustainability. Our diets, our modes of moving, and our urge to keep interior temperatures close to 70 degrees Fahrenheit no matter what is happening outside — none of these make us awful people. It’s just that collectively, these behaviors are moving basic planetary systems into danger zones.

Read the whole thing here. Its fantastic.

Written by Ruby

July 21, 2011 at 3:17 am