The animal rights movement is not always as effective as it could be
This is an extensive article. It is structured as a route: six stops along the main line, with side tracks along the way for those who want to go deeper.
The green line is the main line of the argument. The yellow branches are side tracks: background you can skip without losing the thread. Click a stop or side track to go straight there; use the back button of your browser (previous page) to return here to the map.
Stop 1 of 6 · Two motivations
Two motivations
Standing up for animals has two important aspects: a sense of justice and compassion for the animal. These two motivations resemble the two main currents in politics: liberalism and socialism. In the struggle for the rights and interests of animals, the right to freedom (liberalism) unfortunately does not have very good associations. The associations meant here are an association with the liberal politics of the Dutch party VVD and with the politics of the animal liberators, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). That is a pity, because it threatens to make standing up for animals less effective. The association with the politics of the VVD is unfortunate because it is associated with the right of the strongest. The association with the ALF is unfortunate because the method of literally setting animals free is so controversial. Of course we at Animal Freedom campaign against the excesses of liberalism and we support legal actions only.
Stop 2 of 6 · Illegal actions backfire
Illegal actions backfire
After the murder of the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn by an environmental and animal rights activist (2002), animal rights activists were put in a bad light. Many people used the negative publicity to soothe their conscience: "standing up for animals is not necessary, because I do not want to be associated with it". Activists who carry out illegal actions that cause damage become more and more isolated. The public loses more and more sympathy and the activists become frustrated. Standing up for animal rights requires staying power, not hit-and-run actions. Only when activists set a good example themselves, by holding positive actions and for instance cooking tasty vegetarian food, can others be expected to follow.
Side track A · Eco Nostra and Peter Siebelt (± 1 min)
Eco Nostra and Peter Siebelt
In the Dutch book Eco Nostra (July 2003) Peter Siebelt tries to suggest a link between left-leaning voters and politicians on the one hand and illegal animal rights activists and environmentalists ("cosa nostra, alias environmental mafia") on the other. Being a vegetarian (let alone a vegan) is already suspect. The book randomly parades people from left and right who campaign legally or illegally. It suggests that a national and international network works together to stand up for animal rights and the environment at all costs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Still, the illegal actions did lay the foundation for such a book (with a matching readership). Siebelt relies on old papers of action groups that were collected under false pretences and on information found on the Internet. Unfortunately he does not limit himself to cutting and pasting, but feels he has to add cynical comments to the alleged connections. By putting random facts one after another he suggests connections and by leaving out relevant information he manipulates the reader. In doing so he (unfortunately helped by the media) distorts the truth.
Side track B · Bad and good role models (± 2 min)
Bad role models
The image of farmers has always been very strong. Every child has at some time dreamed of becoming a farmer. Because of factory farming, greed and boundless audacity this image is fading. The sector itself is responsible for this process, but so much money is involved and there are so many stakeholders who have invested their money in it that there is little point in trying to fight a one-man battle as a naive individual. It goes without saying that murdering a popular politician does not lead to understanding among the general public for the movement to which animal and environmental activists belong. Marianne Thieme, founder of the Dutch Party for the Animals, predicted: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". By this she did not mean that whoever makes a fool of themselves brings victory over the abusers of animals any closer. Streakers should streak and not let themselves be slaughtered in public like meek sheep by smooth-talking opponents who do well in the media. Stick to what you are good at, stay on the straight path, patiently keep the long-term goals in sight and do not be blinded by short-term publicity gains in debates with people whom you use or attack yourself. Certainly do not do this if you cannot stay emotionally calm. Rather do nothing than something that feeds the prejudice of the sceptics in the crowd.
Good role models
Undoubtedly a good role model is Paul McCartney. The former Beatle is a vegetarian and publicly campaigns against animal suffering in livestock farming, among other things in a "shocking" video made together with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). PETA is known for its tough approach. It is a matter of taste whether this shock effect wakes people up or rather puts them off. Because "sex sells", PETA often uses nude models in its campaigns. That in turn raises the question of where the interest comes from and whether anything of the underlying message sticks.
Side track C · Solidary or solitary? (± 2 min)
Solidary or solitary?
There are people, organisations and political parties that work for the environment, for nature and for animal welfare. An environmental activist works for a clean environment with as little poison and fertiliser in it as possible. An environmental activist is concerned about the health of the environment and its consequences for nature. A fighter for nature is concerned, among other things, about the extinction of rare animal and plant species and tries to promote biodiversity. An animal protectionist works to prevent or tackle the abuse of animals. And an animal rights activist believes that animals have rights and focuses on people who do not recognise these rights. An animal liberator takes animals out of captivity, usually laboratory animals, fur animals or (occasionally) animals from intensive livestock farming. These groups overlap only partly. An environmental activist or party may not care about animal welfare in "green label" sheds or about the concentration of intensive livestock farming in multi-storey pig farms on industrial estates, as long as these sheds do not emit ammonia into the environment. For these people reducing the environmental burden is more important than reducing the number of animals suffering in factory farming. It seems as if these animals are not counted as part of nature or do not have intrinsic value. People who work for others in the developing world are sometimes prepared to make far-reaching concessions on animal welfare for the economic development of countries. One result is that fishing grounds off the coast of Africa are plundered by fishing nations for a pittance. Apparently they find it too much trouble to keep two goals (human and animal welfare) in sight at the same time. Another example is the World Wide Fund for Nature, which works against the extinction of species in the wild. That goal does not mean that the WWF is against the pointless killing of animals. It has not committed itself to that. So it can happen that the WWF expresses its horror at images of young seals being slaughtered in Canada, but does not take action against it in order to maintain good relations with the local population, as long as the species involved are not threatened with extinction. Such an attitude is not exactly morally lofty, but unfortunately it is the rule rather than the exception under the guise of setting priorities. So it is important to look at why someone campaigns against factory farming and not to assume too quickly that everyone supports this struggle for the same reasons. This prevents frustration caused by naive expectations of supposed solidarity. Lawyers will argue for legal measures, biologists for closed habitats, Christians for stewardship, psychologists for awareness, sociologists for accessible recreation areas, etc..
Stop 3 of 6 · Similarity is a weak basis
Legal effectiveness
Because of the unwanted associations mentioned above, moderate animal activists have historically taken a more radical social position. After all, there seem to be enough aspects left on which to base standing up for animals: "it is about welfare", animals "have emotions and feelings", "can feel pain", "have a memory", "have a certain degree of intelligence and consciousness". In short, Peter Singer concluded: animals have interests and resemble humans so much that it seems logical to give them rights too. Unfortunately these aspects are less common in the courts and in politics, because violating these interests is so difficult to test legally.
Side track D · Help from science? (± ½ min)
Help from science?
Does a fish feel pain when it is hooked? It is clear that the fish shows reactions that resemble those of people who are in pain or under stress. However, supporters of angling are quick to argue that the activists are anthropomorphising: thinking and imagining by human standards. Animal rights activists are so alarmed by this that they call in science to prove that angling harms fish. The animal rights movement is thus very much on the defensive and keeps looking for ever more convincing arguments. However, rights have more to do with principles than with science. It will be clear that Animal Freedom argues that fish have the right, for instance, that their peace is not disturbed by people who hunt fish for pleasure.
Stop 4 of 6 · Being fobbed off
Being fobbed off
The Dutch expression for being fobbed off literally means "being sent into the reeds with a clod of earth": people are led away from the right track, so that they get stuck in the swamp. This swamp stands for a legal battle of words that cannot be won. In the last twenty years of the previous century many animal rights activists believed that the case could be won by appealing to the intrinsic value of the animal. In 1981 the Dutch government recognised this aspect in a policy paper on animal protection and in 1992 it was included in the law. People wrongly concluded that this was the beginning of victory. Reality shows the opposite: factory farming has only grown and the situation of animals has almost only become worse. Livestock farmers see economic value in their animals and will continue to construct more and more economic value. The only reason why livestock farmers do not treat their animals even worse is that in some cases it is evident that they would harm the welfare of their animals and with it their own commercial interests. Fortunately animal abuse can be tackled through the law. But current legislation does not regulate how passive abuse and exploitation should be tested legally. For that the law must be supplemented with the fundamental right to freedom for animals. That is why Animal Freedom chose its name: on this point the constitution must be made equal for humans and animals. The concept of "intrinsic value" will remain popular for a long time and internationally, because this side track leaves alone the people who want to earn a lot of money from animals. Excesses will be tackled, but this also perpetuates and legitimises the practice of animal use.
Side track E · A chair in animal law (± ½ min)
A chair in animal law
Establishing a chair in animal law will not by itself help to improve animal welfare either. It increases knowledge of the position of the animal in law, but in itself it is no incentive to improve the position of animals in practice. When professor Dirk Boon states that the basis of animal law is the right not to be abused and that humans have the duty not to abuse animals, he describes and legitimises the practice of dealing with animals. The point is to go further than symbolic legislation and symbolic functions. Fortunately Boon (1949-2019) went further than the letter of the law in the media.
Side track F · Rhetorical tricks and conversation stoppers (± 1 min)
Rhetorical tricks and conversation stoppers
Another way in which intensive livestock farming tries to postpone its dead-end future is by shifting its responsibility to the consumer, crying out "we only produce what the market demands". With this it hopes to keep its critics off its back for some time. Other rhetorical tricks are: "The Netherlands leads the way in setting welfare rules. If we lose our market position, other countries will take over. And other countries take animal welfare less seriously." Or from the other side: "an animal has intrinsic value". Those interested in fallacies and the answers to them are referred to this list. Animal protectionists sometimes put improper pressure on each other too. Some think in the short term, others in the longer term. The latter like to take the time to make sure that the organisation is well set up or that a vision is well thought out. Others, who are more impatient, sometimes want to cut the discussion short by calling out "but we all do it for the animals". This conversation stopper is demotivating and, when used improperly and often, together with cronyism and agreements or demands not to criticise each other, it leads to political stalemate.
Stop 5 of 6 · Principles work in the long run
Animal rights are a matter of principles
Every motivation to work for animals is a good one, but only principles can do justice to animals. When the same pitfalls are avoided with regard to animal rights as in human law, an effective appeal to animal rights becomes possible. This means that the courts start from principles and not from concepts that cannot be tested, based on social considerations such as "being able to feel pain", "welfare" and "intrinsic value". With these concepts consensus can only be reached about gross violations. When a pig in factory farming is bored because in its short life of six months it can do nothing but wait for its death in a bare pen, this falls outside the range of abuses that can be tackled. The right to freedom and equality among animals are the only two, but necessary principles. That is what the French Revolution taught us: liberty, equality and fraternity. The first two concepts are included in human law and well regulated; the third is the only thing animals can sometimes (in cases of extreme abuse) expect from humans.
Effectiveness in the long run
There is a good reason why so many people choose liberalism. We want to grant this privilege of freedom to animals too, without making it a condition that the animal resembles humans in many respects (feelings, intelligence and the like). We believe that in this way we can eventually stand up more effectively for the interests of animals in legal matters. Only when the right to freedom is laid down in the constitution as a fundamental right for animals can effective action be taken against factory farming and other businesses in which the welfare of the animal is at stake. Otherwise only excesses can be tackled.
Stop 6 of 6 · Compromises and vague goals
Are compromises really so strategic?
Some strategies are less effective than they seem. In the Dutch "polder model", which works with compromises, a step-by-step approach seems the most effective. This is only an illusion. When livestock farmers, after concluding a compromise, are confronted with further demands from the environmental and animal rights movement, they react indignantly, because they have just invested heavily on the basis of the compromise. The step-by-step approach is by definition slower than founding animal rights on an ethical and moral principle and it is fairer to all parties. It seems a longer road, but the sum of small steps without direction is a much longer road. Fortunately the number of starting points for a good legal basis is not as large as some think. As said: freedom and equality. Of course we argue first of all for legal and non-violent steps.
Unclear goals and wanting to please everyone
Some animal rights organisations appeal to people's compassion for animals. They need these people as donors. However, a large part of these donors also belongs to the target group that should actually change its behaviour. This double goal is half-hearted and prevents a strong policy aimed at real improvements for animals. Goals are then formulated safely or vaguely in terms such as "improving animal welfare" and "taking into account the intrinsic value of the animal", while taking into account the economic circumstances of the farmer. Another confusion is that many activists believe that you must not kill animals. If you want to eat animals, they will have to be slaughtered. Far more important than the question whether killing animals is an ethical issue is the question whether it is ethically justifiable to take away an animal's freedom before its death. That is the heart of the matter. Calling a meat eater a murderer, implicitly or explicitly, or using violence yourself does not save any animals; it only kills the discussion. Finally, many staff members of animal rights and animal protection organisations are vegetarians themselves, but the policy of the organisation is not to encourage people to stop eating meat. They are afraid that this will cost donors and members. They would rather set up a separate organisation. The result is that organisations send an unclear and ambiguous message to the public: you must respect the interests of animals, but you may eat them.
Side track G · Mopping with the tap running (± 2 min)
Mopping with the tap running
In theory the Netherlands leads the way with animal welfare rules and limits on harmful pesticides. Unfortunately many farmers ignore these rules. When campaigners argue for stricter rules and better enforcement, it is only fair to argue at the same time for protecting farmers against unfair competition from abroad, where the strict rules do not yet apply. On the other hand it is a favourite tactic of agricultural politicians to block better regulation by demanding that the measures be introduced throughout the EU. This demand is not reasonable, because Dutch agriculture (unlike that of most other EU countries) is geared to export. To outcompete foreign farmers, the environment and animal welfare are harmed at home. Another example of "mopping with the tap running" was the media silence that a number of organisations decided on in 2002. Because of Fortuyn himself and as a result of his murder, campaigning for animal rights and the environment was seen in a less favourable light. By not making clear to the general public why it is so important to stand up for these issues, the public concluded that the criticism was perhaps justified. It is unwise of the environmental movement and animal protectionists to keep relying on the negative influence of animal diseases and food scandals on the buying behaviour of consumers. Consumers have a short memory, because they have an interest in a low price and quickly forget that it is linked to an unjust or harmful way of production.
Another pitfall is to think that a solution is near or that all relevant information will be put on the table when the government is willing to consult. When government representatives are not honest and only care about their own political skin (for example in European manure policy), they only talk about matters that can be negotiated. Animal welfare is an example. Welfare is par excellence a subject that is negotiated, with the result that animal rights are ignored. Activists in turn are placated while they are impressed by the fact that they may sit at the table with important people. A compromise then quickly seems to bring the good cause closer. Animal rights are not a matter of negotiation but of principles. Principles must not be horse-traded. Freedom of information laws (in the Netherlands the Open Government Act) should be used much more often to hold administrators to account. The Party for the Animals was founded in the Netherlands because former campaigners for animals wanted a permanent seat at the table to take part in decisions on policy that affects animals.
