Mar 28 2011
“For Animal Liberation to Become Possible”
Paul Shapiro is a member of the “Animal Rights Hall of Fame,” and in charge of anti-animal-agriculture campaigns at the Humane Society of the United States—a moderate-sounding animal rights group that most Americans believe is affiliated with their local humane societies. (This is not the case.)
Appealing to mainstream values is a strategy that the Humane Society of the United States employs constantly, but the group’s end goal is far out on the fringe: By the “humane” treatment of animals, HSUS means an end to all human uses of animals, whether on the farm, in medical schools, at the zoo, or on the dinner table. That’s something mainstream Americans just don’t agree with.
Skeptical? Before Shapiro adopted HSUS’s more moderate “animal protection” tone, he was all about “animal liberation.”
About two years before he joined HSUS, the magazine No Compromise published a point-counterpoint debate between Shapiro and Kevin Kjonaas, a former Animal Liberation Front spokesman and since-convicted felon.
No Compromise, now defunct, described itself as “the militant, direct action publication of grassroots animal liberationists and their supporters.” In other words, it was a cheerleader for the animal rights movement’s violent, nasty underbelly.
While Kjonaas advocated leveraging fear and trepidation against animal-rights targets, Shapiro argued in favor of using the mainstream media to promote their common agenda. But tactics aside, there was a common agenda: Shapiro (now with HSUS) and Kjonaas (now in federal prison) both agreed “animal liberation” was their end goal. That means ensuring that no one can drink milk or eat meat, cheese, or eggs. Period.
Here’s what Shapiro wrote:
Like it or not, hundreds of millions of Americans consume mainstream media every day-along with animal products, as well. … These are the very people who must change their eating habits in order for animal liberation to become possible.
While it would be great to wait for the public to start consuming independent media, to force animals to wait for their liberation until such a societal shift takes place is both unfair and unethical…
The only way we can fundamentally reduce the level of animal suffering is to reduce the number of animals people eat.
Today, HSUS’s corporate line is that it wants merely to “reduce, refine, and replace” animal products in our diets. In effect, that means the gradual “liberation” of animals to end humans’ use of them. Especially as a part of our diets.
The irony is how this point-counterpoint was a precursor to both men’s futures. Kjonaas, who took a media-be-damned approach, engaged in activities that ultimately earned him a 6-year prison sentence. Shapiro, who favored playing the mainstream media like a rented fiddle, now does exactly that for HSUS. And he’s certainly not the only one.
Related Documents
Related People
Posted on 03/28/2011 at 03:34 PM by the HumaneWatch Team
Animal Agriculture • Dairy • Eggs • History • Meat • (2) CommentsComments
@JDH - The people we’re concerned about will think that about us no matter what (or just claim it, because it makes some of us shut up). The key is that you don’t have to change their minds, you just have to stop them from changing the minds of other people. That’s why Shapiro is dangerous, because chaning minds is his goal. However, we still have the advantage, because HSUS needs to actually change minds and behaviors, while we only need to convince people to stay the same.
Primarily, you just need to stay reasonable and rational when you make your points. If someone wants to complain about the plight of cows, cite Kobe beef as your rebuttal. Those farmers treat the animals like royalty; what benefit do they have from grazing wild? The same principle applies to all farmers. You get a better product from healthy animals, so it is naturally in the farmer’s interest to take care of his charges. They are being raised to die, but, in the mean time, are protected from predators and diseases.
Animal rights people forget or discount the changes brought about by the domestication process. The behaviors, attitudes, and physical characteristics bred into these animals through generations leaves them unsuited to a wild life. Domestication is good for the species, if not as good for the individual, because we will make sure the species is propagated perpetually.
If you still have a problem, you can advocate for more money for enforcement of animal protection laws and for upkeep of animal care facilities. Also, you make the case that evil people are going to be evil regardless of the law. Starving and injuring animals is obviously wrong, but it happens despite existing laws. Laws, alone, do not change behavior. Consequences do. Like you say, let’s try to enforce the laws we have, before expanding the criteria.
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
The more I look into the tactics of the animal rights movement, the more I notice that they’re already way out front in the propaganda game. I noticed a parallel in phrasing recently between an outcry to make “animal cruelty” a felony…and the appeals to life a “cruelty-free” lifestyle. The move against animal cruelty included pictures of extremely starved/abused animals that would evoke a visceral reaction in anybody who wasn’t a complete psychopath. Now, I’m all for capital punishment in cases of people who starve and/or beat animals, but I’m a bit leery of the agenda behind the movement. Nobody wants to be the a**hole saying “No, don’t protect the poor abused doggy.” but wouldn’t that doggy be protected if current laws were enforced with any sort of consistency? I worry that the jump will be made from getting tougher on animal abuse to outlawing “cruelty” such as beef consumption. How can we support a common-sense approach without sounding like we’re for beating bunnies?