Gary Francione is a Professor of law opposed to speciesism, he debated online with an animal rights activist regarding the question of the strategy we should use to implement animal rights in the society. After the exchange of some arguments, Professor Francione stopped debating and blocked the other activist and erased his comments. But here you will find the exchange that was made public by the activist:
Francione’s post:
1. « In a nutshell:
It is either the case that you think that animals are just things that have no moral value and to whom we can owe no moral obligations.
Or it is the case that you think that animals matter morally.
If the latter is the case, then veganism is not an option–it is what you MUST do.
If you claim to believe that animals matter morally and you are not a vegan, then you are either confused or you don’t really believe that animals matter morally and you regard them as nothing but things. »
2. The activist commented the following :
« In the French part of Switzerland, instead of converting people to veganism we organize big actions with which we criticize speciesism (like the marches for the end of speciesism) or during which we claim that killing animals for food has to be banned. That helps us receive media coverage and give our ethical arguments to the public, which creates a debate in the society about the status of animals and the fact that they shouldn’t be treated as a ressource. Because this kind of actions, more and more people are realizing the injustice happening to the animals and understanding that our society has to stop killing animals for food. A poll shows that in the French part of Switzerland we now have 35 % of citizens thinking that we should close all slaughterhouses. Those people are not all vegans in their consumption habit, but they have the political opinion that killing animals for food must end. When we will have more than 50 % of people agreeing with this claim, we will be able to vote a law banning the killing of animals for food, even if those people are not all vegans. So don’t you think that it is a good thing to have people having this kind of political idea even if they’re not vegan ?
Coherence can be good for the individual who practices it, because he can think of himself as rational. But coherence isn’t an end in itself, it can be viewed as a way to come to the end, but there are also other ways that bring us to the end. Do you think human slavery was abolished just because some people converted others to « hooganism » (a way of life that excludes all products of human slavery) ? Or because people made the claim that human slavery had to be abolished ? Don’t you think that after the claim was made, and the arguments for the claim shared, there were more and more people thinking that human slavery had to be abolished without boycotting all products of human slavery ? Don’t you think that this mass of people having this political opinion helped to get human slavery abolished ? Don’t you think that even human slavery abolitionist activists didn’t all boycott animal products ? But didn’t they arrive to the abolition anyway ? Do you know that the famous american abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, even openly ridiculed the tactic of boycotting all products of slavery, saying it was at best a distraction from the larger abolitionist work and at worst it whitewashed the conscience of the people to the detriment of slaves who did not profit from it. (see: Hinks, Peter and McKivigan, John, editors. Williams, R. Owen, assistant editor. Encyclopedia of antislavery and abolition, Greenwood Press, 2007, p. 268).»
3. Francione answered to it by the following :
« No, I think that promoting anything other than the abolition of animal exploitation as a political/social matter and veganism as the individual expression of abolition is nonsense and is just an excuse to allow for animal charities to fundraise. And if you think that people who are continuing to eat animals are going to help bring about the revolution, you are dreaming.
And you are confused: the boycott of the products of human slavery is not analogous to veganism. Animal products are not the products made BY animals; they are the products made OF animals. Consuming animal products is analogous to buying slaves and not to buying products made by slaves. The one thing that was clear during the anti-slavery movement was that abolitionists maintained that no one should buy slaves.
I find it amusing on one level–and very depressing on another–the extent to which some “animal people” will go in doing cartwheels to avoid promoting veganism as a moral imperative. »
4. Answer of the activist:
« Claiming for the abolition of animal exploitation as a political/social matter without trying to convert people to veganism isn’t a nonsense, it is the way with which all social movements create a debate in the society to get a practice banned. For example, in Switzerland we will have a vote soon on the possible ban of synthetical pesticides, and people who promote this ban don’t say that it is also necessary for all people to boycott food that was grown with this kind of pesticides. And for them to say that can vote for the ban only people who never buy food grown with this kind of pesticides would be a complete suicide. Don’t you see that saying one cannot be for the end of animal exploitation without being vegan is also a complete political suicide for our movement ?
It is much easier for people to change their political opinion about a practice if they don’t also have to change completely all their consumption habits. And having more people having the political opinion that animal exploitation has to end can bring us to a situation where more than 50% of people share this claim and we can then vote a law forbidding animal exploitation. Don’t you think that the ban of animal exploitation would be a good thing ? I agree that buying meat is buying a part of an animal. But in our society it isn’t perceived as a part of an animal, it is just perceived as a product. So the comparison between veganism and hooganism (the boycott of animal products and the boycott of products made by human slaves) holds up well. Also, eggs and dairy are clearly products made by the animals.
Also buying animal products is very different from buying human slaves, because people don’t buy live animals, they just buy non-living products. In the contrary, buying live animals to kill them is analogous to buying human slaves, but the big majority of humans in our countries don’t buy live animals to kill them, they just buy things to eat. So if we can clearly say that buying live animals to kill them and wanting the end of animal agriculture is analogous to buying human slaves and wanting the abolition of slavery, we can also clearly say that buying yoghurts, eggs and non-vegan sandwiches and wanting the end of animal agriculture is analogous to buying sugar and cotton made by human slaves and wanting the abolition of human slavery. And we have to realize that the big majority of people who were for the abolition of human slavery, consumed sugar and cotton produced by slaves. But they still succeeded. And we can do the same if we focus on the political opinion of people. »
5. After the activist answered that, Francione blocked him and deleted his comments. The activist made this public comment about Francione’s way of reacting:
“For a law professor, one cannot help but notice that he is extremely bad at giving arguments. And for a person who thinks that he is the father of « the abolitionist approach to animal rights », one might have expected more information on the strategy to be used to achieve this abolition, with arguments that support his strategic vision. Clearly, all this is completely absent, which cannot but lead one to think that his method for achieving abolition is mediocre, if not non-existent. And I have never seen anyone in a social movement focus so obsessively on the consumption habits of individuals, instead of focusing on changing their political opinion to allow societal change through legislation.”
6. To justify the fact that he blocked the activist and deleted his comments, Francione said the following:
“Sorry but this is a page about abolitonist veganism. I maintain that if animals matter morally, veganism is a moral imperative. You claim that to promote veganism as a moral imperative is “suicide for our movement.” [sic!] I do not know what movement you are part of, but it has nothing to do with the movement of which I am a part. I do not allow pimping non-vegan positions. There are plenty of pages where you can do that. Not here. Bye bye.”
First, it is important to highlight that Gary Francione is a law professor and has not any knowledge of sociology of social movement or sociology of construction of public problems, so his position is soaked with this ignorance.
In the contrary of what said Francione, the activist expressed that forbidding to people to be for the end of animal exploitation if they are not vegan is a political suicide for the animal rights movement, because it would mean that only vegans can support the abolition of animal exploitation, which represents a very little percentage of people, while saying to citizens that they can be for the abolition of animal exploitation even if they are not vegan, helps us get much more people who have the political opinion that animal exploitation has to be banned.
He never said that we shouldn’t also promote veganism, but expressed that instead of focusing on individual consumption habits of consumers we should focus on the fact that we have to change the political opinions of citizens regarding the illegitimacy of the practice of killing animals for food.
This strategy, also used historically in the movement for the abolition of human slavery, will allow us to have a majority of people having the political opinion that killing animals for simple food habits has to be banned, even if they are not all boycotting products of animal exploitation. Which will help us to get a ban on animal exploitation.
To understand how we can change the political opinion of citizens regarding this subject, please read the following text: For the abolition of veganism, for the abolition of animal exploitation – Abolitionist strategy