Archive for July, 2009

i recently devoured the book Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles Of Incarcerated Women, and it started me thinking about the use of prisons in the united states and the effectiveness of incarceration in deterring crime. it would seem that other folks have cages on their mind as well: royce at vegans of color put up a post about incarcerating people of color for animal cruelty, and there was recently some lengthy debate about the inclusion of hate crime laws in different ENDA [employment non-discrimination act] legislation floating around the country. both discuss the abuse of the current (in)justice system — putting people of color and trans people, respectively, behind bars in greater numbers than white and cisgender people — and the failure of the threat of prison to prevent crime.

as vegans advocating for the end of the imprisonment of non-human animals, i can’t fathom how we can simultaneously support a system that puts human animals in cages — especially those humans who are systematically marginalized, silenced, and oppressed. the SRLP, referenced above, also expresses some concern that the inherent power and hierarchy in the criminal justice system will never allow for a level playing field, and those laws put in place to protect marginalized groups through the use of incarceration (i.e. hate crime legislation) may end up putting more of us behind bars. if the laws are going to be enforced unequally based on race, class, gender, etc. then i, as a vegan, cannot support them.

a few things turned my stomach about the article referenced in the vegans of color post above. in addition to the reporter completely dehumanizing cheyenne cherry, the young, black woman who killed a cat by putting her in the oven (royce rightly notes that billions of people do this very thing every day to a chicken, and yet none of them will find themselves arraigned and sentenced to a year in jail), discussion of a demonstration outside of the courthouse includes quotes from participants calling cherry “ugly” and “a monster.” (and don’t even bother reading the comments below the article from readers; some of the vitriol there is more than i can handle.) i wonder how many of those demonstrators wore animals to the courthouse, went home to consume animals, or purchase products that were tested on (and resulted in the murder of) animals? breeze also notes, in the comments, that mike huckabee’s (white, male) son allegedly hanged a dog in 1998 but was never prosecuted, either due to his race, his father’s influence, bias/reluctance by the local enforcement, or all of the above.

i remember when the michael vick dog-fighting case occurred, gary francione seemed to be the lone voice attempting to humanize vick and bring some perspective to the crime. other individuals and media outlets were quick to brutalize, pathologize, and otherwise create a monster out of michael vick, as if the idea of animal abuse was completely unfathomable and absent from the rest of the world. of course, i find dog-fighting, murdering cats, abuse or violence against any animal or human completely atrocious, but i’m not sure that throwing michael vick or cheyenne cherry in jail is going to prevent any future violence against animals. in fact, it is committing an act of violence against human animals. the united states incarcerates more of its population than any other country (one in 100 adults are in jail in the united states, as of 2008); crime rates, however, are rising. statistics go on to further suggest that 45 percent of people once incarcerated will commit crimes upon their release.

incarceration is not working to prevent future crimes from being committed, and it is oppressing people of color, women, and/or gender non-conforming individuals. so what is the answer? it seems like education, drug rehabilitation, counseling, and striking at the societal roots of racism/sexism/classism/heterosexism/speciesism would go a lot further in preventing crime than putting people in cages (where further violence is perpetuated through abuse by inmates, guards, and the system itself). after all, aren’t we as vegans working toward the elimination of those cages, regardless of who is contained within their walls?

i recently participated in a discussion about the unlikely partnerships between animal advocacy corporations and individuals, groups, or corporations who do not focus on animal advocacy work but have chosen to support a particular animal-related issue through press releases, advertisements, or products.

many of these partnerships have been in the news as of late, and each one has certainly given me pause. we have the humane society of the united states pairing up with rush limbaugh to increase awareness about animal cruelty; never mind that in the same breath, limbaugh might be telling women to “put some ice on it” and get over it following a beating by their husbands or partners. we have PETA commending KFC — and referring to their products as “favorites”! — for its inclusion of one vegetarian option in one country in which it does business and the use of a different killing method for the chickens it slaughters. the author of this PETA blog conveniently neglects to mention that KFC is a company founded on the torture, murder, and sale of animals to humans.

advocates of these sorts of arrangement stress that it’s vitally important to get the anti-cruelty message into the ears of as many people as possible. one employee of a large animal welfare corporation told me that the animals can’t be bothered with our high standards for who speaks out for them. we should be grateful for any show support of animal protection we can get — even if it’s from people who otherwise oppress animals or humans.

but what about the potential for losing other voices who are completely horrified, offended, or triggered by the work that these fair weather animal allies are doing when not pairing up with HSUS, PETA, etc? if a handful of republican supporters are persuaded by rush limbaugh’s anti-cruelty message, what if another handful of domestic abuse survivors, and/or LGBT individuals, and/or women are completely turned off by the pro-animal organization’s alliance with an anti-human advocate?

how often have we heard that hitler was a vegetarian? in my experience, most vegans and vegetarians immediately attempt to distance themselves from that association (or even disprove the notion altogether, which, according to the internet, is not true); i’d venture to guess that few of us would reply with, “well, we don’t really consider the other things that hitler stood for, we’re just thrilled to have one more vegetarian among the herd.” a person’s whole body of work — especially when they are being touted as a spokesperson for a particular cause or message — has to be taken into consideration.

falling far short of the vegan ideal, in my opinion those partnerships actually hurt animals and animal advocates. when it is posited that animal abuse is actually more important than the abuse of humans or the denial of human rights — when those issues aren’t even considered when forming these awkward alliances — we are doing ourselves and the animals a great disservice. yes, i prefer that we conduct a litmus test on ourselves and the world around us, and i choose to push toward a vegan world — one in which no one is oppressed.

oh. and for a great post on why i might reconsider my use of the term “ally” from now on, check this blog out.