On misconceptions about abolitionists, and speciesist pet shows

Animal rights vs "animal welfare"

It is not usual for me to comment on articles in the foreign press on this blog. Not that there would be anything wrong with that - it's just a personal choice. However, an article I recently found at Herald-Dispatch.com, to which I replied, serves as a good example to point out some of the myths about abolitionist animal rights, and to give the true picture. Some of my explanations will also be pertinent, since they are relevant with regards to an advert in today's Malta Independent regarding a "cat show" that is being organized.

In the Herald Dispatch piece, Tamara Myers-White, among other things, says:

"The animal rights platform is this: Animal rights claims animals have the same legal rights as humans, with the most basic right of not being owned or used for any purpose by human beings. Supporters of animal rights aim to end all ownership, use and breeding of all animals.

True animal rights activists are vegan vegetarians, meaning they eat nothing that is an animal or an animal by-product. They envision a world in which no animals are left anywhere, alleging that man has so mistreated animals, that they (humans) no longer deserve the 'right' to have animals. They want to end -- yes end -- the existence of all animals by sterilization; i.e. spaying and neutering and castration. Since that would be virtually impossible, they want all domesticated animals set free to make their way in the wilderness, and to end all hunting of wild animals".

Animal rights does not claim that non-human animals have the same legal rights as humans. Animal rights only claims that non-human animals, like humans, only have the rights that matter to them. This includes the right to life and liberty.

Further to this, animal rights activists do not envision a world in which no non-human animals are left anywhere. Ms Myers-White's claim that "man has so mistreated animals, that they (humans) no longer deserve the 'right' to have animals" contradicts the primary and fundamental claim of animal rights advocates that non-human animals are not human property.

To have or not to have non-human animals is not a question of whether humans deserve them or not. Non-human animals are not possessions that are deserved or not deserved. They are autonomous individuals. The question of whether humans "deserve" to have non-human animals is similar to whether free humans "deserve" human slaves. Slavery is still wrong, even if the slaves are treated comparatively well.

Animal rights activists do not want the extinction of all animals. They only want the elimination of the property status of non-human animals. Free animals should remain free, while we should stop breeding, selling and buying non-human animals as if they are our property.

As to setting free all domesticated animals to make their way in the wilderness, this is also a misconception. Our solution to ending animal exploitation is threefold. Stop breeding any more non-human animals, care for the non-humans whom we have already brought into existence, and set free only those animals who have a chance to live as free individuals. Considering that humans breed millions of non-human animals each year, simply setting free all the animals would not only be impossible, it would even be harmful to many of the animals freed and also to the other animals who would be possibly harmed by the large influx of newcomers.

Speciesist "cat shows"

In The Malta Independent of today, one will find advertised the upcoming 7th "cat show" organized by the Malta Feline Guardians Club.

To avoid repeating myself, I invite you to read "Slave parades, speciesist "pure-breeding", and other non-human breeding" and just replace "dog/s" with "cat/s".

To conclude, I am reproducing a quote from Gary L. Francione's blog, taken from an article which deals on "domesticated animals".

"The central position of my rights theory is that we have no justification for treating animals as our property just as we had no justification for treating other humans as slaves. We have abolished human chattel slavery in most parts of the world; similarly, we should abolish animal slavery.

But what does that mean in the context of nonhumans? Should we 'liberate' animals and let them wander freely in the streets? No, of course not. That would be as irresponsible as allowing small children to wander around. We should certainly care for those nonhumans whom we have already brought into existence but we should stop causing any more to come into existence. We have no justification for using nonhumans—however 'humanely' we treat them".

Gary L. Francione: Animal Rights and Domesticated Nonhumans