An Open Letter To PeTA
Print This Post
Dear PeTA,
I’ve received a number of letters from you over the past year, asking for my financial support for one campaign or another, along with many pleas to renew my membership. One particular letter asked me why I hadn’t renewed my membership thus far. In June, your boss, Ingrid Newkirk wrote:
“Is there something that I should know about why PETA hasn’t received your renewed support this year? If you have recently sent your 2009 renewal gift, please forgive me. If not, please let me know why.”
Well, my answer is in the form of another quote from your organization in a letter I received in September. The following is from a petition you want me to sign and send to my local McDonald’s Franchise Owner:
“I urge you to make your voice heard and call on the executives at McDonald’s corporate headquarters to institute [Controlled-Atmosphere Killing] as quickly as possible. CAK would reduce suffering for the hundreds of millions of individual chickens slaughtered cruelly each year, and you’d once again be viewed as a leader in animal welfare reform – a win-win for animals and for McDonald’s.”
So you want me, a vegan, who is opposed to the exploitation and slaughter of animals for any reason, to send a letter to McDonald’s, asking them to continue killing hundreds of millions of chickens, but by using a less cruel method of slaughter?
I thought you were against the slaughter of animals, period? I even have a PeTA button that says ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS TO EAT, WEAR OR EXPERIMENT ON. When did you change from animal rights to animal welfare?
I’m not really interested in making McDonald’s look good or making them more profitable. And I’m not interested in making it easier for animal killers to do their jobs or making people feel good about eating animals because they’re “killed with kindness”.
I’m only interested in one thing: saving the animal’s lives, so I’ll continue to educate people about veganism and you can continue to make deals with the devil, but you’ll be doing it WITHOUT my financial support.
And that is why I can’t renew my PeTA membership.
Sincerely,
Dan Wilson
Animal RIGHTS activist and VEGAN
I judge advocacy rather than organizations, taking a contextual approach supporting campaigns that are consistent with rights (abolitionist) and rejecting those that are reformist/”welfarist.”
Using PETA as an example, I strongly support the Animal Liberation Project (http://www.peta2.com/ALP/) and appreciate all their efforts to expose speciesist exploitation and offer resources for vegan living. PETA’s work is the reason I became vegan and got active for animal rights.
I agree with your analysis of PETA’s McCruelty campaign. Once McDonald’s agrees to PETA’s demands, McDonald’s will get positive publicity and continue their mass killing of chickens, pigs, cows, fishes, and other animals for profit. PETA should stick to abolitionist campaigns, opposing the injustice against other animals and the corporations that are instrumental in upholding the system of human supremacy.
I like your perspective, Brandon. I feel the same way. I don’t agree with PETA on every issue or every campaign, but I do agree with some of them. And I’ll support those issues and campaigns with my money or time.
Well done, I couldn’t agree with you more.
After I had already decided to become vegetarian (I am vegan), watching some of PETA ’s videos strengthened my resolve to remain vegetarian during the first few months. However, a lot of the things PETA does seem strange. I am unsure if PETA turns OFF more people becoming vegetarian then it turns on.
Besides PETA’s embrace of slaughter welfarism, I cannot endorse their unwillingness to condemn use of violence by activists. Actions such as threatening or harming pro-vivisection researchers or their property may seem relatively minor compared to the violence committed against animals, but pro-animal rights violence, which PETA remains silent about (and thereby appears to consent), is wrong, will not work, unnecessary and is deliberately used to harm the reputation of the animal rights cause as a whole. I expect PETA and other animal activists to loudly condemn acts of pro-non-human animal violence when they occur.
Being counterproductive in many respects, I cannot say I entirely trust PETA and am unwilling to contribute to them at this time.
Anyone who withdraws support of PETA should funnel their support to another animal organization.
Dan, Andrew, and John: Where are you now sending your checks since you’re not sending them to PETA?
PETA’s refusal to condemn illegal direct action is a positive, in my opinion.
Unconventional means are important in any struggle for justice. When we say only state-sanctioned tactics are appropriate, not only are we being speciesist (as I doubt we would say the same if the victims were human), but we are also limiting tactical diversity needed to challenge the system.
Watch the story of Britches liberated from a vivisection laboratory by the ALF: http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=britches
I will never condemn those who break the law to secure freedom for the oppressed. I hope PETA never does, either.
My actual letter to PeTA went something like, “I can’t support you if you’re going to campaign for more humane killing, but if and when you go back to animal rights, I’ll go back to supporting you.”
As for where my money goes now, it goes to organizations like FARM to purchase their postcards, Vegan Outreach for their Cruelty-Free Guides (although I’m rethinking ordering more) and other organizations by buying t-shirts, buttons, posters, etc.
But the bulk of my donations goes to me, or more accurately, the Vegan Party of Canada. Tabling at ecofests and veggie food fairs, running off photocopies, purchasing materials and getting t-shirts made up costs a lot of money, and I’m currently up to my eyeballs in debt because of it.
Not that I mind, because I believe in what I’m doing. But like so many have said before, if you don’t like the way someone is doing something, then do it yourself.
And so I am.
In the case of the ALF, “unconventional” has meant homemade bombs. The ALF is considered a major terrorist threat the by the FBI and ATF. Employing obviously naive tactics led directly to the authorities passing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and made it much easier for the government to harass and limit the activities of animal rights advocates. In other words, the ALF provided the pretext the authorities needed. How has this helped animals?
During the 60’s, government provacateurs infiltrated anti-war groups and encouraged violence as a means of giving the government the pretext to crack down. It also allowed the groups to be portrayed in the media as violent radicals. Nowadays, the animal rights movement is being portrayed by the media as “terrorist”. Vigilantes hiding under ski masks is not the wholesome image one wants to identify with.
The increased security will no doubt make it harder to accomplish rescues and saves and they possibly could be viewed as acts of terrorism.
Since we oppose the violence against non-humans and are confronting an extremely powerful opponent which has a monopoly on violence (and is armed to the teeth) a better tactic for the animal rights movement is the non-violent Gandhi approach. The ultimate object in politics is swaying public opinion. Using violence will not accomplish it, but the exactly the opposite. Using violence in this situation is like peeing into a gale.
I reject the industry-government-media complex distorted view of reality. Destroying inanimate objects used to commit atrocities against nonhuman animals is not violence, nor is it terrorism. Freeing enslaved nonhuman animals is not violence, nor is it terrorism. Employed by the ALF, these are counter-violence, counter-terrorism actions, carried out under the nonviolent guidelines to avoid harming any sentient being, nonhuman or human. The real perpetrators of violence and terrorism are the guilty corporations that torture and murder innocent animals for economic gain.
Highly recommended reading:
“You Don’t Support the ALF Because Why?” by Steven Best
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Best–Support%20ALF.htm
I spend the vast majority of my time promoting veganism and advocating rights. We need to build social support against speciesism to create the conditions for political change – to end the status of nonhuman animals as legal property and secure their personhood and all applicable legal rights.
As long as nonhuman animals continue to have their moral rights violated without recourse, there will be activists who take it upon themselves to rescue/liberate these animals from oppression, sabotage the property used to carry out abuse, and take a variety of other illegal direct action to cause economic damage to animal-exploiting corporations. These actions are generally aimed to save lives now and weaken the structure of human supremacy, rather than trying to change the opinions of any particular individual.
In my countless hours of vegan advocacy leafleting (mostly on college campuses), I have not once had anyone even mention the ALF, let alone use such actions as a reason to dismiss the case for veganism and animal rights. Illegal direct action may get some negative news coverage (due to our speciesist culture and the pro-corporate bias of the “mainstream” media), but I do not see it turning off others to the cause of justice for nonhuman animals.
In theory I agree with what you are saying. I am 17, a dedicated vegan of three years and I am a PETA member, much to my parents dismay. Though I think it is an awful truth that so many animals are killed for human use, it is also an undeniable one. The vast (VAST) majority of people in the US are carnivors and choose to eat the food that places, such as McDOnald’s, supply. It would be unfair for PETA to discourage McDonald’s customers from consuming their food (because this is a capitalistic nation and they have every right to make money in any legal way they choose). My point being this…no matter how hard we vegans try…we will never convert the world or get them to see our side of the matter. So, as long as these atrocities are being committed…shouldn’t we at least make it painless? Controlled-Atmosphere Killing will provide a less painless death for animals. And, though, yes of course I think that they should not be killed at all, McDonald’s corporations do not agree. I feel that CAK is supporting animal welfare, even though it is not stopping the slaughtering of innocent animals.
I am very happy to see so many responses to your post though. It gives me a small amout of hope for the animals to see that some many people are concerned for their welfare. Thank you for your beautiful thoughts…lets keep fighting for the animals one step at a time.
Thanks for your comments Sarah. In my mind, fighting for the animals one step at a time means encouraging people to go vegan one person at a time. I don’t mean this as an attack, but finding kinder, more humane ways (and more efficient ways that benefit the animal exploitation industries) of killing animals is not the way to animal liberation.
If we’re concerned only with reducing suffering, then why promote veganism at all? Just because most of the world RIGHT NOW eats animals isn’t a good enough reason to reject the principles of veganism. Five thousand years ago everyone believed the earth was flat. Five hundred years ago everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth. And not so long ago, white people believed black people were no better than animals.
People change. It just takes time. I can’t and won’t accept the lesser of two evils. Sure CAK is a little less brutal, but it’s still brutal. Chickens will still be abused and mutilated before they go to the gas chambers. They will still be forced to molt. They will still live in cramped cages. Male chicks will still be killed – suffocated or ground alive – because they are useless in the egg production industry.
This is not something we should be promoting. As Gary Francione says, a rape victim would suffer less if she wasn’t beaten first, but nobody is advocating for more humane rape. That may disturb you. You may think it inappropriate. But so is slaughtering millions of animals because we like the taste of their flesh.
You wrote, “It would be unfair for PETA to discourage McDonald’s customers from consuming their food (because this is a capitalistic nation and they have every right to make money in any legal way they choose).”
You said a mouthful. PETA is supposed to be animal rights. It’s PETA’s mission statement TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM CONSUMING ANIMAL PRODUCTS. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don’t. That’s the problem. They aren’t consistent. The other problem you mention is that it IS legal to kill animals because people like the taste of their flesh.
If you think it’s unfair – for any reason – to discourage people from eating animal products, then why are you vegan? Why not just reduce the amount of suffering you impose on animals?
If you believe it’s wrong to use, abuse and kill animals – for any reason – then let others know how you feel and why. But the last thing vegans and animal rights activists should be doing is making excuses for those who exploit and kill animals, or making compromises. If it’s wrong to kill animals, then it’s wrong.
Daniel´s last blog ..We are not lions
I can definitely see where your feelings are coming from as I, too, am an advocate for animal rights. Now,the way Peta is approaching this issue is also understandable to me because let’s face it, McDonalds isn’t going anywhere. People like us are not exactly respected by the masses because they see animals as lower on the food chain and they see us as some crazy activist hippies. It’s smart to petition for more humane slaughtering as it is a vast upgrade compared to the way the chickens are being treated now and either way, the slaughtering is most likely not going to stop. I do respect your opinion and your ideals, now, I think Peta was just thinking realistically when they made up this petition.