Veganism And Violence
Print This Post
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” – Isaac Asimov
This guy has a piece of celery in one ear, a carrot in the other ear and a zucchini up his nose. He goes to the doctor and asks him what’s wrong. The doctor tells him, “Well, for one thing, you’re not eating right.”
Okay, maybe not the funniest joke in the world but I just wanted to show you that I do have a sense of humour. But what I read last week wasn’t funny to me at all. In fact, I thought it was quite appalling.
The incident I’m referring to is the pie-ing of Lierre Keith, former vegan and author of The Vegetarian Myth, by three hooded vegan extremists.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the assault took place at an anarchist book fair, where Keith was promoting her book, and the pies thrown at her were reportedly laced with chili peppers. For the complete story, click here >>
A similar occurrence happened here in Canada a few months ago, when a pie-wielding PETA member attacked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because she supported the annual east coast seal slaughter. PETA claimed responsibility for the pie assault and the woman, an American from New York City, was charged. Here’s the link to that story.
Now there are a lot of things that people say and do that I disagree with, but I don’t go around throwing pies at them. It’s not only childish; it’s an act of violence. Veganism is supposed to be about NON-violence.
And while a number of people have applauded the pie-throwing episode in San Francisco, some vegans don’t even consider it an act of violence. According to a person who witnessed the assault:
“I was there and perhaps I should have snickered in silence, and I am the first one to condemn ‘violence’, but I firmly feel that this was not a violent act, but a clever and effective direct action. The only thing the pie throwing ninjas bruised was her ego. Lierre Keith’s book is very dangerous to the vegan movement.”
For the record, hitting someone in the face with a pie IS a violent act. It’s a display of force meant to embarrass or humiliate someone else, and it’s doing something to someone else against their will – a violation. It doesn’t matter that Keith wasn’t physically or seriously injured.
So what are these people trying to prove? Do they think they’re going to win the public over or be taken seriously by hitting people in the face with pies? What message do they hope to impart on society, other than if you support acts of violence against animals (or even write against vegetarianism/veganism), you will become the target of violence?
Some animal activists used to do the same thing to people who wore fur, but instead of throwing pies, they threw red paint (and apparently still do on occasion). But the tactics, and the message, are still the same: the use of violence to raise awareness of violence. It’s all pretty stupid if you ask me.
And it’s counter-productive. Throwing pies at people doesn’t make them think about animal suffering or animal rights. It will however, make them think that animal activists are a bunch of crazy idiots.
Since 99% of the population doesn’t see anything wrong with using or eating animals, a lot of people will use this stunt (and others like it) to denounce veganism, and label us all as angry, militant and irrational hypocrites, even though it’s not true.
If these violent outbursts continue, the progress we’ve made as agents for peaceful change will suffer. We’ll be branded extremists and terrorists. Never mind Lierre Keith’s book; it’s the pie-throwings and other senseless acts of violence that could do the vegan movement the most harm.
I respect your opinion against violence and in fact view myself as leaning towards pacifism, but I think claims that certain forms of activism are “counter-productive” need to be backed up with evidence. There’s not enough reason to believe that a few pie-throwing incidents will significantly inhibit the animal rights movement. In fact, I think it’s rather ridiculous to make such a claim particularly in light of the fact that all rights movements have included some violence and have more or less succeeded either as a result of such violence or despite such violence. The claim that “violence is counter-productive” doesn’t hold water.
I’m anti-violence, I don’t support it, and yet I think that it was not necessarily productive or counterproductive that the pie throwing occured. IMHO, It’s just some people ‘policing’ their own event and taking back power from a controversial speaker who should have not been there.
I think the bigger thing is HOW the article and responses are spun.
1) Nobody knows what was in the pies, and this makes a difference too. I have seen people saying pies with chilis, pies FULL of chilis, pies with etc. The spin here is there is a big difference between plain whipped cream and eye-burning chilis and the intent between the two is very different. Before we keep spreading the myths, even we should try to get to the bottom of it.
2) Im not sure what damage control can be done as the people who don’t care about animals anyway are not thinking “AHA and those people are the reason why I dont go vegan”. In a few weeks, if anyone has heard about Lierre or this eventat all, the story will be forgotten and those people will still care nothing about animals.
3) Non violent direct action could have been different…ie whistles, posters etc…but then the people who dont care about animals will spin it a different way “AHA the vegans wont let opposing views being heard..they are so closeminded etc”.
If people are looking for a reason to continue participating in suffering they will find a way somehow. IMHO, It is only through real understanding of the problems that they will begin to change.
Anonymous, I don’t think it matters if the pies were laced with cayenne, chili peppers or candy sprinkles. It’s still an act of violence. My point is that veganism is supposed to be about non-violence. Using violence to stop violence is an oxymoron, like humane slaughter or military intelligence.
EV, can you give me an example of violence used in the animal rights movement that has advanced animal rights and made things better for animals in general?
.-= Daniel´s last blog ..In defense of James Cameron and Avatar (sort of) =-.
I welcome this discussion. The question as to how to achieve social progress has been around in much broader terms since the beginning of social movements. I am vegan but do not feel like a complete pacifist. For example – if somebody were to torture or attempt to kill an innocent animal next to me – I am not all certain how I would react if words do not suffice to stop him.
Vegan philosophy is certainly non-violent in itself. To me – pacifism is a goal and veganism feels like the only way to reach it. Veganism in this sense feels much more real to me than pacifism. Gandhi himself said that there is something worse than violence – cowardliness.
Throwing pie feels like a grey zone to me and it certainly a single extreme among the many different types of PETA campaigns. It feels more about shaming somebody publicly than the intention to hurt them physically. I cannot recall ever having seen a PETA campaign that aimed at causing physical hurt to anybody. Schadenfreude – yes. Causing injury – no.
PETA has been under attack from within the animal protection movement for quite some time. Abolitionists like Gary Fracione attack their animal welfare projects as being counterproductive to pure animal rights. And polite vegans attack them for painting a wrong media image of the average vegan – portraying them as axxholes.
For instance – this week Eric Marcus wrote on his great blog about The Terminator concept.
http://www.vegan.com/blog/2010/03/22/can-peta-be-fixed-2/
Somebody “sane” at PETA should filter their campaigns. He is generally a fan of PETA but dislikes the provocative campaigns like Holocaust On A Plate. In order to mobilize the 2 million members to finally do “only good” – he suggests hiring a smart “outsider” – from the “moderate” community I suppose. I personally fear that PETA would not continue to grow with a Terminator in place and i want them to grow many more million followers than they already have to be frank.
But I keep wondering. Why does PETA have 2 million members and why do moderate or pure abolitionist organizations have so few? From my personally experience I can attest that before I started donating to PETA – I had heard and felt about them in a negative light. But they had planted a seed in my head as an organization that sticks out for animals with all means that democracy and free speech allows. When I got fed up with animal abusers on a large global and small local scale – I started thinking of PETA more openly. Now I am a big, grateful fan and admirer.
Obviously they are not out to please existing, moderate vegans. They are out to plant seeds in people’s heads who would otherwise not think about animal issues at all. When PETA looks at the choice of putting vegans in a nice light by calling a campaign: Why Factory Farms are Bad or by reaching not hundreds but millions of citizens by calling it Holocaust on A Plate – they know why and what they are doing. Vegans will not stop being vegan because they are portrayed by the media as strange. But new people will hear about animal issues for the first time. Is there such a thing as bad marketing? Maybe – but it feels to me as if PETA keeps the balance overall. There are enough “sane” PETA representatives to be seen on popular media to balance certain provocation. But the vegan “media” works like the non-vegan media – only the provocation is being discussed.
If one looks closely – PETA’s campaigns have substance. A lot, most, of the “good” work they do goes unnoticed because it is not-provocative. Abolitionists also seem to miss the point for example that PETA never promotes organic free rang meat. They only join efforts with welfare initiatives that ease the suffering on factory farms while they still exist. This is another discussion altogether however and I have written enough. I agree with the EccentricVegan above that it is not all clear which methods help how much overall. It feels as if there are enough sane and moderate animal protectionists, also within PETA, for balance and follow ups once the issue of animals is on the horizon.
Thanks again for promoting this platform of exchange.
Words of wisdom:
“It is the propaganda machines of the major animal user industries that have made violence and animal rights synonymous in the minds of many people.” – Tom Regan (Empty Cages, pg 192)
.-= Brandon Becker´s last undefined ..Response cached until Thu 25 @ 23:23 GMT (Refreshes in 22.97 Hours) =-.
Daniel, Im talking intent of violence. Yes one can say by American laws that pie throwing is an assault. But its not as if they used pies filled with a life-threatening substance or something. There is a big difference and I think the intent is important ( hence laws/courts etc ).
And I would like to know why people automatically think veganism is about total nonviolence. I’m not condoning violence..but I think I could violently intercede if required to save an animals life if there is no law enforcement around (IE if I saw someone beating a dog ). I see no problem in defending life if no law enforcement is around to stop perpetrators of crime. I dont think I would passively sit around and do nothing. IMHO to do nothing is worse than trying and failing. Its often passive behavior which leads to societal ills.
With that said Im not supporting violence,I just am hoping for getting some perspective on the pie event.Yes it might not have any positive effect…but since the pie event is not PETA or major news…it will be forgotten sooner than we think ( by the general media ) as I dont think anyone even ( outside veganism ) knows of Lierre or the event.
Having been involved in a number of “actions” to stop violence towards animals (even being shot at), I know that it’s possible to interfere or prevent animal cruelty without causing violence to the perpetrators.
If you saw someone abusing/beating a dog, you can stop it without causing violence to the abuser (standing in between the abuser and the dog, leading the dog away from the abuser, etc).
Defending life is a good thing. Doing nothing is a bad thing. But I don’t advocate violence to stop violence. I remember my martial arts instructor telling me the highest level of martial arts is to not resort to fighting.
P.S. The pie event in question was at the 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Book Fair. I have a feeling it was well attended, and by more non-vegans than vegans.
.-= Daniel´s last blog ..In defense of James Cameron and Avatar (sort of) =-.
Pacifist legalism is a dead-end for the movement. We need to be open to a diversity of tactics if the abolitionist struggle is to be victorious. If innocent humans were the victims, I hope all of us would support direct action to stop the threat to life; other animals deserve the same consideration.
I think Hugo X above makes cogent points on PETA. I applaud PETA’s provacative “Holocaust On Your Plate” (now gone) and “Are Animals the New Slaves?” (now renamed “Animal Liberation Project”) campaigns which strike at speciesist ideology upholding the system of human supremacy. Nonhuman animals don’t need us to be comfortable activists, they need us to be effective activists.
Daniel I applaud your ability to diffuse your situations, and yet, your examples are personal anecdotes. Are you saying that If your techniques did not work, and you could not persuade a perpetrator to stop, that you still would not intercede?
I totally agree with your post! Nothing good comes from acting violently. And pie throwing gives people more of a reason to think we are all a bunch of idiots. Great post!
.-= Jacqueline´s last blog ..Vegetarian and Animal Rights Events =-.
Thanks Jacqueline!
Anonymous (funny name), I think we could go on forever with yeah-but-what-if-this and yeah-but-what-if-that, but like I wrote earlier, there are ways of defending animals without punching someone in the face or hitting them over the head with a baseball bat. And throwing a pie in someone’s face definitely doesn’t help the animals. Of that I am convinced.
.-= Daniel´s last blog ..Violent vegans =-.
Dear Daniel,
I feel that I should clarify some basics here before our discussion circles around misunderstandings.
I am personally against throwing pies. I would not do it myself. I feel as if it borders a violent act – even though it has obviously not the intention to hurt (another definition of violence). I personally want to live non-violently but if I am attacked, by say a dog, I would defend myself. That does not mean that I am out to hurt dogs for no reason. In other words – I try to be a pacifist but I am certainly vegan!
What I am utterly frustrated by however, and what I find extremely counterproductive, is how the non-PETA animal-rights movement writes and thinks about PETA.
PETA does NOT promote any violence whatsoever! PETA has also never and will never promote the consumption of humanely raised animal products (they are pure AR and not AW). PETA operates exclusively within the law, free-speech and the democratic process.
Please go to their Web Site and tell me where you find the promotion of violence among their thousands of campaigns of the last 30 years. This is ridiculous.
http://www.PETA.org
Let’s get real. What happens is that sometimes, among their 2 million members, somebody does something like throwing pie. Only because PETA does not turn against that member, only because PETA sees the animal abusers as worse in the bigger picture, only because PETA defends other AR efforts – does not mean that PETA is, has been or ever will be violent.
When I look at AR blogs like Vegan Freaks (Radio) or Gery Farcone or even Vegan.com by Eric Marcus – I cannot believe what kind of image we give PETA. We seem to be worse than the general media. Vegan Freaks spend half of their time portraying PETA as worse than animal abusers. MLK and Malcolm X – despite their different methods shared the same goals and never wasted so much time criticizing each other.
I also feel that non-PETA AR supporters are missing the boat. PETA is being portrayed less bad by the general public media by now than by AR sites themselves. This too is getting ridiculous and out of hand.
Again – please go to:
http://www.PETA.org
and let’s discuss, write about and support the good campaigns, most PETA campaigns. Only then am I ready to join this out-of-control PETA bashing for certain, few provocations from their side.
I mean – how does your brain work on that issue. You agree with Obama on 90% of the issues but would never vote for him because of the remaining 10%?
Historically I have supported local organizations for political lobbying and global organizations like PETA for the necessary media work. There is room and purpose for every effort.
This whole PETA-bashing-thing among vegans and ARs has reached a point where every time I read a PETA-bad article – I make a mental note NOT to support the source but to double my contribution to PETA. PETA does not waste their time and my money criticizing other AR organizations. They are too busy defending animals in the media and also other AR activists.
What would be fair – I think – is to at least spend as much time writing about positive PETA campaigns as we do about negative ones. The non-AR media actually does a better job at this. Thank god that mainstream journalists do not know of our small blogs – cause they would get a worse image about PETA (e.g. violent) than they would get from meat eaters.
“spend as much time writing about positive PETA campaigns as we do about negative ones.”
I agree with this sentiment 100%.
I think it should be applied to all animal activism, not just to PETA.
It’s why I wrote: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/celebrating-the-victories-of-vegan-women-female-animals/
Hugo, in terms of PETA endorsing violence, if you look at their FAQ section (http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp) they directly defend the actions of organizations like ALF that inflict violence on those they disagree with. I take that to be PETA supporting violence.
You also say PETA doesn’t support animal welfare, but how else do you explain their giving awards to Whole Foods for selling happy meat, or to Temple Grandin as a “visionary” for designing awesome new slaughtering procedures.
http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html
Why does an organization dedicated to animal rights (as you claim) openly promote people who are animal exploiters?
“those they disagree with”
Ummm… no.
It’s not an intellectual disagreement. It’s animals’ lives.
If the ALF uses violence, they do it against those who torture and kill animals, not merely “those they disagree with.”
Ok, so you’re saying violence against animal exploiters is fine. So where is the line of who deserves violence against them? Laboratories are apparently ok to attack. How about farmers? How about grocery stores? How about my neighbour who is having a BBQ, should I throw a brick through his window?
I get where you’re coming from, I get that we all want to save every animal life we can, but attacking producers doesn’t help the cause, it hurts it. If we commit violence against something the public finds acceptable (like animal laboratories), their reaction is not to listen to us, it is to attack us right back, or marginalize us. Violence is not a practical strategy, it alienates people. Let’s spend our time and energy talking to people, not threatening them. We are right and they are wrong, we don’t need bricks to prove our points.
“you’re saying violence against animal exploiters is fine.”
That’s NOT what I said.
Ok, I apologize if I misunderstood your position. I took your message to be a defense of ALF, and I assumed that meant you agree with their position of committing violence against animal exploiters.
The PETA bashing from AR sites is undeserved? Really? Sorry, but my definition of an organization against violence and for the ethical treatment of animals has never included killing over 90% of the animals they take in.
Hugo wrote: “PETA does NOT promote any violence whatsoever!”
Ingrid Newkirk: “I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.” – The Chronicle of Higher Education
http://chronicle.com/article/As-Threats-of-Violence/12776/
If this isn’t promoting “any violence whatsoever”, please tell me what is.
Hugo also wrote: “PETA has also never and will never promote the consumption of humanely raised animal products (they are pure AR and not AW).”
From the PETA Files: “PETA has officially ended our Kentucky Fried Cruelty campaign in Canada. Our decision came with a new animal welfare plan that will affect all chickens killed for KFCs in Canada. For one thing, 100 percent of the chickens killed for Canadian KFCs will be purchased—through a phase-in program—from suppliers that use “controlled-atmosphere killing” (CAK), the least cruel method of bird slaughter available. CAK works by replacing birds’ oxygen with a mixture of nonpoisonous inert gasses to gently put them “to sleep.” It may sound horrible—because killing animals for a fleeting taste sensation always is—but for animals killed for food, it’s a 180° turnaround. Gone will be the days of broken bones, abuse by workers (because with CAK, workers never handle live birds), electric shocks, and live throat slitting and scalding.”
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2008/06/01/historic-victory-peta-wins-kfc-campaign-in-canada.aspx
If this isn’t animal welfare, please tell me what is.
These are just a few of the reasons why I can’t support PETA anymore, and I used to be quite an active member.