Gary Francione on Vegan Freaks

If you’ve been reading Animal Person, you know I’m a big fan of Gary Francione, and find that he is one of the few leaders in the animal rights movement (to the extent that we have one) with whom I agree. He is an abolitionist, rather than a welfarist (like Peter Singer, who unfortunately clouds the atmosphere), and provides a cogent argument for ditching national welfare organizations, working outside the movement and concentrating on veganism, or, abolition rather than regulation of the use of animals.

From the sound of many of the e-mails I get and some of the comments readers leave (as well as looking at the entire landscape of  "the movement"), there is significant confusion regarding what animal rights is supposed to be and how we are going to achieve our goals.

Let me be clear about what Mary Martin, Ph.D., Animal Person believes:

• We have no right to use nonhuman animals as commodities.
• Therefore, my goal is the abolition of the use of animals by humans.
  • This includes use of animals for food, clothing, experimentation, entertainment or "sport."

• The ONLY right nonhuman animals should have, that will resolve this current situation of oppression, is the right to NOT be treated as property–the right to NOT be owned.
• The several-decade long mainstream (relatively speaking) animal "rights" (which is really animal welfare) position has claimed that regulation of animal use will ultimately lead to abolition.
• More animals are suffering, in worse ways, than ever.
• Veganism is abolition-in-action. If you really want to produce abolition, the incremental decrease of suffering won’t do it (it produces more people who feel better about eating and using animals). The ONLY way to work toward abolition is to do it in your own life, and advocate that others join you.

Check out Gary Francione’s two-part interview on Vegan Freak Radio (part two is here). He logically explains why veganism is necessary if you care about animal suffering (say it with me people: supply and demand), and why regulation of suffering results in the perpetuation of suffering (although that should be obvious by now).