Have Gone Vegan

we're increasingly living in an Alice-in-Wonderland type world, are we not?

(Advance apologies for the length of this post - I even shortened it a fair bit! - but I need to get stuff off of my chest.)

Hello reader, would you believe I started the first draft of this post over a year ago? This is, in fact, the 3rd 4th 5th 6th attempt I've made since my "woke" post to sort and gather my thoughts. First, a long draft last June (with lots of links), then an even longer draft in November with even MORE links. Had planned to post in December, but the dismal grey weather matched my mood too perfectly, so I put if off. Also didn't want to post at the beginning of 2024, because why start the year off on a less-than-optimistic note? Then world affairs continued to get worse, and of late things have been happening so quickly it's almost impossible to keep up!

So here it is, finally, and if I thought things were topsy-turvy enough before, I'm not even sure how to describe it now. Other than to say that to me almost everything, but the political landscape especially, feels upside down, inside out, and wrong side up. (Thus the reference to Alice in Wonderland in the post title.) It's left me bewildered, anxious, ANGRY, and feeling like this is the most exhausting and dangerous time my (boomer) generation has known. Hyperbolic? Perhaps, but I do believe we are living in an age of accelerating chaos, from which the wrong people will benefit. 

But before I continue, let me ask: is there ANYTHING Canadians are not currently divided on? (Not that polarization isn't an increasing problem almost everywhere.) For example:

• our record-setting wildfire season last year (not a problem, likely arson vs. evidence of increasing climate change)
• climate change (manufactured hoax vs. real crisis)
• vaccine mandates (authoritarian assault on freedom vs. the right collective thing to do to protect everyone)
• The Emergencies Act (draconian & unconstitutional vs. unfortunately necessary)
• Tamara Lich and Chris Barber (national heroes vs. criminal grifters)
• Justin Trudeau (dictator of a broken Canada vs. leader holding Canada together relatively well)
• CBC (liberal mouthpiece that should be defunded vs. national institution worth preserving - though some on the left are now starting to view the CBC as more of a conservative mouthpiece...)
• MAID (cruel eugenics experiment vs. compassionate medical care)
• gender-affirming care (genital mutilation vs. life-saving care)
• DEI (racist anti-white ideology vs. attempt to address systemic racism)
• Ukraine (stop funding vs. continue to help)
• Gaza, possibly the most heated/explosive dividing issue of late (Israel has the right to defend itself vs. yes, and we DO condemn Hamas unequivocally, but no, that DOESN'T excuse civilian genocide, and no, saying so ISN'T anti-Semitic)

The other odd thing going on right now are how some of the same accusations are being levelled by opposing parties or supporters (whether Canadian or American), with the "every accusation is a confession" being lobbed back and forth by all:

• Division - which leader is being divisive? 
• Distraction - which leader is distracting voters with wedge issues? 
• Authoritarianism, if not fascism - which party is flirting with this? 
• Cancel Culture - which side is trying to do this?
• Truth - why can't they distinguish between truth and lies, facts vs. fiction? 
• Science - whether it's gender-affirming care or climate change or...  all sides will claim to BE on the side of science
• Protecting kids - again, both sides of the gender identity culture war believe that that's EXACTLY what they're doing, with each side claiming the other is obsessed with body parts and gender identity

Which brings me back to the reaction to PRIDE month last June, when in my opinion the current cultural shitshow REALLY took off. Besides the wildfire season which had many of us inhaling smoke, the firestorm around Pride last year is one that I've never seen in my many decades of supporting the LGBTQ+ community. Holy crapola! (Don't know if it was as bad this year as I actually tried not to be on social media as much.)

With the American election coming up in less than 100 days, how is it even possible for a twice-impeached seditionist found guilty of 34 felony counts to run for president again, and worse, still have a real chance of winning? It boggles the mind. In what fiction writer's mind (other than M. Atwood perhaps) would it even be considered a potential plot? It erodes all sense of decency, justice, plausibility and normality. (Go, Harris-Walz, Go!)

Given recent SCOTUS rulings (presidential immunity, legalizing machine guns, criminalizing homelessness, and deciding that bribes aren't bribes if they're received after rather than before), you can't blame Americans for their record-level low trust in the Court. It would seem then that the aim of the justice system is no longer justice, just as the aim of too many politicians is no longer serving constituents or country, but winning elections and gaining power.

Now before Canadians get too smug, our country is no longer immune to political mayhem either. I mean, how could so many be gullible enough to fall for Pierre Poilievre's fake populist playbook, or be swayed by the Conservative Premiers of New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta willing to use the Notwithstanding Clause in order to take advantage of anti-trans sentiment to get more support? 

While I personally blame Stephen Harper nationally and Mike Harris provincially for starting the process of loosening Canadian social safety networks if not democracy itself, I believe that the '16 election of Trump in the US, the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, the resistance to health measures and mandates, and the Freedom Convoy movement here in Canada helped to accelerate the Alice-in-Wonderland world we're now in.

Sadly, Pierre Poilievre lying (love how lie is literally part of his last name) about how Canada is broken and continually blaming Trudeau for everything is something he's learned from the best: keep repeating lies no matter how absurd, because enough people will come to believe them. Have to wonder though; what will Conservatives do when they can no longer blame everything on Trudeau or the carbon tax?

Here, as in the US and other parts of the world, we can't even seem to agree anymore on the meaning of certain words: left, right, freedom, fascism, antisemitism, genocide, racism, truth, woke, etc., while phrases like "bodily autonomy" is used more to indicate being against vaccines than being in favour of reproductive rights. Speaking of which, did you know that back in 2021 Texas tried to pass a bill that would punish those who got an abortion with the death penalty? (Yes, take a moment to let that sink in.)

Doesn't sound very "pro-life" to me. And while that didn't happen, Google Project 2025 to see what policies concerning education, DEI and abortion some Republicans are eager to implement. Democrats in this instance aren't blameless either. The Biden administration could have codified Roe in the last four years, but instead are using abortion rights as a voting issue.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Depends. Those who clamour the most for the right to free speech seem to be the same folks who would like to squash certain books (book ban attempts in the US hit an all-time high last year, and oh, Canada's own Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake, along with 12 other books, has now been officially outlawed in Utah's classrooms and libraries in a first statewide ban), sex education in schools around orientation and gender identity, and a kid's right to choose their pronouns in school.

Those crying for smaller government don't seem to have an issue with the prolific US anti-trans legislation* (initially said to be about protecting kids, but quickly morphing into removing rights for adults as well) either. And not surprisingly, "parental rights" do NOT appear to include the rights of parents with trans kids to decide for themselves (in conjunction with medical professionals) the best care plans and treatments for their kids. (*638 US bills, with 75 at the federal level, have been introduced in '24 so far, already surpassing the 604 introduced last year.) 

Freedom of speech or expression for whom? You do have to wonder when a new US law defines criticism of Israel as antisemitism. You do have to wonder when so many consider the protest of the disproportionate killing of Palestinian citizens in Gaza to be antisemitic.

You do have to wonder when Amazon permanently removes my ability to leave reviews (and deleted ALL my previous ones) after warning me that a critical review (see View this photo below) of a bestselling racist book violated their community guidelines, even though the book itself and its positive glowing reviews reiterating some of its racism did not. Photo below is of deleted review. 

View this photo

Why the eagerness to suppress speech of protesters by so many who complain of "cancel culture" in too many other instances? Free speech for me but not for thee?

Protesting itself will be viewed (and punished) differently depending on what is being protested. You'll have noticed that occupants of the so-called Freedom Convoy two years back were treated quite differently than Indigenous or environmental activists. Calling to overthrow the government is one thing, but protesting pipelines, fossil fuel industries or factory farming is apparently quite another.

Just recently, 5 UK Just Stop Oil participants were sentenced to four and five years in jail based on evidence gathered during a Zoom call. Yes, a Zoom call. Five years. Equally unfathomable to me is that the judge decided evidence related to climate breakdown (the reason they were protesting in the first place) was irrelevant and inadmissible, which reminded me of the 'Excelsior 4' case in BC, Canada. Here too the judge ruled that evidence related to animal cruelty (why protesters were protesting) was irrelevant and inadmissible, and the protesters were sentenced to 30 days in jail - the only known jail sentence in Canada for peaceful civic disobedience.

In January the BC Court of Appeal upheld their convictions, and while they overturned the jail sentences in June giving them 120 days of house arrest and a year of probation instead, these two cases have set a too dangerous precedent for those protesting whatever interferes with corporate and industrial moneymaking. All the while, climate-damaging and animal-harming industries themselves go unpunished, and certainly never get jail time even in cases of egregious animal cruelty. 

Speaking of animal cruelty, Ontario has reinstated the blood sport of penned hunting, Alberta sneaks in a grizzly bear hunt, and "Everybody Hates Marineland" has reopened this season after hopeful rumours of its demise. Oh, and notice how during Canada's wildfires media will discount injured, killed or displaced wildlife when stating there were no fatalities or casualties? Also, while much of Ontario's ag-gag law was defeated (woohoo!), Canada's federal ag-gag Bill C-275 is unfortunately getting close to being law. 

I mentioned earlier some of the words we have difficulty agreeing upon. Facts, too. Facts like who won the last US election. Amazingly, I came across a stat recently that said up to 40% of US citizens thought it was Trump. What kind of world do we live in? (Apparently one filled with misinformation and disinformation, one where facts and "alternative facts" duel it out, and where appearance and perception trumps truth.)

What kind of world do we live in when we can't even agree on what is actually happening? Whether in terms of climate change, crime statistics, causes of high inflation and housing, the scapegoating of immigrants and transgender folk, where do we go from here if we can't agree on what is real and what is causing our problems? How do we move forward?

So it's not surprising that this absurdist and increasingly frightening world of ours (we ARE in deep doodoo) is driving so many of us around the bend. And because it's hard to know how to deal with this and how to respond effectively, some of us are opting to check out politically, which I completely understand. It's tempting to just say, "You know what, if the human species is so incredibly dense and arrogant and murderous, then fine, bring on climate disasters, bring on war. Deny what's happening if you want, but don't whine and wail when it comes to your own doorstep."

It's easier to throw your hands up in the air, and I wouldn't blame anyone for doing so. In fact, my own post could just as easily have finished on this note:

I duly give up, so let me end by quoting the Cheshire Cat from a book I've never read, but is a line which somehow makes sense to me:

Never let anyone drive you crazy; it is nearby anyway and the walk is good for you. 

But no, just as vegans keep trying to make lasting change when it comes to animal use/abuse, so we have to do the least we can do when it comes to the interconnected social injustices that our world seems to spit out faster and more furiously by the day. We need to, at the very least, be aware of what's going on, speak up and be on record with our voices for the atrocities we're witness to, even if we don't have the power to personally change anything. Saying, "This is wrong" may be the only thing we CAN do, but it's the least that needs to be done. If we can do more, with our conversations, our votes, our wallets, all the better still.

I'm hoping too that knowing you're not the only one feeling unmoored, unsettled, concerned, frustrated, and upset at the calamities that seem to hurtle at us so fast we can't even fully grasp what's going on before the next one strikes, is of some comfort. Please know you're not alone. And even though that's not a solution to any of the atrocities, if enough of us realize that others are just as appalled as we are at the state of the world, maybe we can band together. 

========================================================================

If helpful, here are some Canadian and American publications and authors I read or follow:

Canadian

1) Naomi Klein, author of No Logo, The Shock Doctrine, and the excellent Doppelganger, which I highly recommend. Interview with The Breach about her book: Naomi Klein: The right has put the left’s ideas in a bonkers blender

2) Astra Taylor, (vegan, woot!) author of The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart (which I'm currently reading), who also happens to be the sister of Sunaura Taylor, vegan author of Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation (own, but haven't read yet)

3) David Moscrop, author of Too Dumb for Democracy? Why We Make Bad Political Decisions and How We Can Make Better Ones, and from his Substack: Saying True Things Out Loud and What Does Collapse Look Like?

5) The Tyee, one of my favourite independent Canadian media websites:

Democracy Is Under Siege Globally,

Stepping into the Big Weird 'Anti-Woke' Tent,

Pay Attention, Canada, to Europe's Hard Right Parties, and

Wildfires, Grief and Paralysis

4) The Breach (mentioned up above), another recommended independent media website  

American

Some of the main US Substacks I follow include:

1) Judd Legum at Popular Information

2) Joshua P. Hill at New Means

3) Robert Reich

4) Sarah Kendzior at Sarah Kendzior's Newsletter, and

5) Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning: THE best source for news on trans legislation

=======================================================================

Whew!

If you made it this far, THANK YOU for reading, and for trying to help make our world less of an Alice-in-Wonderland one. It's hard, I know, but we have to persevere!

thanks: giving, taking, or living?

To avoid the risk of repeating myself, I've compiled a list of the Thanksgiving posts I've written over the years from oldest to newest, so that you can choose which, if any, you'd like to reread. And the fact that I've posted about this holiday more than any other indicates how off-putting I find the notion of giving thanks by taking away life.

Other holidays too are incongruous for celebrating birth (Christmas) and resurrection (Easter) by killing living creatures, but the hypocrisy of Thanksgiving strikes me as being even more unjust (can't we express gratitude in a less violent way?), perhaps also because more people likely partake of this holiday than the others.

I really wish a movement would take place to reevaluate how Thanksgiving would best be celebrated. And just as 14 U.S. states, the district of Columbia, and more than 130 cities now celebrate Indigenous People's Day instead of Columbus Day, I wish more Canadians would become aware of the colonial history of Monday's holiday. 

===============================

So, here are eight posts (4 October Canadian ones and 4 November American ones) from the past:

2008 - turkey talk

2010 - turkeys belong in fields not on plates

2011 - the fowl/foulness of thanksgiving

2012 - thanksliving

2015 - some food for thought for thanksgiving

2016 - how to get through thanksgiving without killing anyone ;)

2017 - have you met cornelius the wonder turkey yet?

2020 - thanksgiving/taking, it's gotta change however you pronounce it

where has the last year (or two!) gone?

It's been a whole year and a day since I last posted (which means I've now been officially vegan for fourteen years!), and while I meant to get back into blogging more regularly, that obviously didn't materialize. Not that I don't have a bucketful of posts in my drafts folder (34, to be exact, going all the way back to 2011 for heaven's sake), but I just realized too that I only posted TWICE last year. So, what happened?

In part, looking after my mom has taken up a lot of my time and energy. Back in 2018, I posted about her dementia diagnosis and my taking a one-year leave of absence from work to become her caregiver. Well, I never did return to work after that leave of absence, and Mom's condition deteriorated quickly enough that in 2021 she finally went into long-term care. (Was supposed to go in March of 2020 but a pandemic rudely intervened.) And if I naively thought that all my tasks and worries would be over now that she was getting 24-hour care, ha! Nope, that's when an extra workload begins, but that's another story as is life in long-term care during COVID-19. 

Mom will have been at her current facility for 1½ years come September when she turns 95. When she first arrived she was still mobile and using a walker. Now she's completely immobile, stuck in a Broda chair, and her legs are contracted like a pretzel. She was still verbal and lucid enough, but now there are many times when her words are complete gibberish. She's often agitated, distressed, calls out for her mother (in Dutch, moeder, MOEDER!), and doesn't always recognize me, even though I'm in daily.

I can tell you as well that by having to witness her suffering and that of some of the other residents, I have become an even more staunch supporter of MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying - made legal in Canada in 2016) than I was before. Mom wouldn't be eligible for MAiD anyway as she can no longer give consent, and the faith-based institution she is in is dead set against it (the term "dead set" striking me as somewhat funny in this particular context), but I tell ya, I would want MAiD for myself even if it killed me. (Okay, gallows humour appears to be getting the better of me, snort.)

Seriously though, watching a parent go through this end-of-life hell is probably one of the toughest things one can do. And it makes you question why we're willing to grant pets (that most of our species considers to be inferior) a dignified and merciful ending to their suffering, while making it so difficult for people. It doesn't make sense.

So, that's a big part of why I've been absent. Another major reason is my bewilderment at how completely cockeyed our world has become, and the despair at the lack of power individual folk have in not being able to stop that trajectory. If we thought that Donald being elected back in 2016 was absurd enough, societal regression seems to have ramped up even more. I can't believe the times we live in, and it feels like it keeps getting worse. 

Last year I started a draft post of what was pissing me off, and some of the items included the number of vegans embracing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and retweeting fools like Theo Fleury, the passing of the horrendous Texas 6-week abortion ban, folk who still insist that global warming and climate change is a hoax despite the increasing in-your-face fires, floods, hurricanes and other "natural" disasters witnessed worldwide, the infantile and ridiculous obsession in the US with the right to keep and bear arms, and the seemingly unlimited American tolerance for gun violence no matter how many people and children get killed. 

So far in this year Ottawa was held hostage by the "FreeDumb Convoy" in February, we're currently in the seventh wave of COVID in Ontario and the umpteenth outbreak at my mom's LTC facility, the right to abortion healthcare in the US was stripped after 50 years by Supreme Court justices deciding that individual states have the right to enforce forced birth upon their citizens, the aftermath of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas illustrated how many Americans STILL worship guns above all else, 3600 people were killed by extreme heat waves in Europe in July, and of course the Russian invasion of Ukraine that has already displaced 14 million people and ended the lives of at least 20K. It's mind-numbing.

Animals haven't fared well either. Flooding in the province of British Columbia back in December killed more than 640,000 pigs, cows and chickens, but climate change denial lives on. In that same province, 2 animal rights activists were recently found guilty of Break and Enter and Mischief, while in a gross miscarriage of justice the farm owners faced no consequences whatsoever for their legal and illegal abuse of animals. After Ontario passed their "Ag Gag" law in 2020, federal "Ag-Gag" Bill C-205 passed its second reading before Parliament dissolved as a federal election was called. Now, an almost identical bill reintroduced by the same member, John Barlow, will again be up for debate. 

Even species more favoured by humans, like cats and dogs, are sadly being surrendered in record numbers to animal shelters. Blame it on inflation or lifted COVID restrictions enabling people to work at their workplace instead of at home, but many supposed guardians of these animals are abandoning their caregiving promise.  

I ended up abandoning my what-pisses-me-off post because it was getting too long, and too damn depressing. It's hard to know how to make a difference, and what words to use to reach those who don't seem to care or want to know about how humans are succeeding in destroying our environment, animals, and each other. As one reader of this blog once commented, it's so tiring saying the same thing over and over. Exactly.

And there are times when I think that if our human species is that hell-bent on destroying themselves and everything around them, well, so be it. When I was lamenting the choices in our last provincial election, someone said to me that we get the government we deserve. If that's true, then in the same vein humans collectively get the environment we deserve as well. But future generations will be stuck with solving all the needless problems they didn't create and don't deserve, and animals certainly don't deserve the extinction of themselves and their habitats.

So where does that leave us? What can we do? I don't have the answers of course, and I find it maddening to keep having to watch our species not only messing things up, but implementing laws and policies that were more typical 70 years ago. I mean, we might as well be living in 1952 given the extreme right-wing conservative push-back in too many places. The prime minister of Hungary (considered a hero by far too many conservatives) has openly lamented Europe becoming a "mixed race" society, and doesn't even seem to recognize the inherent racism of his views.

And while we watched reproductive rights being stripped in so many other countries, who would have thought that nine individuals (but especially three) could screw over millions of people in the US? I had a letter to the editor published, by the way, warning that Canadians shouldn't be complacent about our abortion rights as too many groups and politicians here are stoked by the unjust overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

As I said, all this nonsense going on perplexes and bewilders me to no end. But it does make it clear that we as vegans have to fight on all fronts and on behalf of ALL animals (including human ones) if we're going to help this planet become less topsy-turvy than it is.

That's it for now from me. Hopefully it won't be another year before I reappear again!

thanksgiving/taking, it's gotta change however you pronounce it

I've written about Thanksgiving (October in Canada, November in the US) more than once on this blog, but the posts have mostly boiled down to this: giving versus taking. Specifically, why can't people GIVE thanks without taking?

Expressing gratitude is a lovely thing, and having a national holiday where folk can celebrate the good things in their lives is fine too, but can't this be done in a way where other lives aren't taken? Why is it necessary to kill in order to say, thank you? 

The hypocrisy of this is even more blatant at Christmas when people worldwide celebrate the birth of Christ (whether they believe or not) by partaking in death.

So I ask again, why does being thankful for good fortune have to involve the taking of life? I would argue it doesn't, and would urge you to rethink why and how you celebrate, if it does.

In these times of anxiety and turmoil it can be difficult to be truly appreciative, but we have to try. With Covid-19, good health is something no longer taken for granted, so if you and those you love are healthy, then that already is something to be thankful for. Still working and making an income? Also something to be extra thankful for. Not separated from your family? Again, no longer taken for granted.

I take it back about it being difficult to be appreciative right now. Perhaps this year like no other people are even more acutely and consciously grateful for the things in their lives still going right, and are more aware than ever of how it can be going so incredibly wrong for so many others.

Happy Thanksliving everyone (to our southern neighbours, we are hopeful that this year you can be thankful for a new President), and please consider the many ways in which you can celebrate life by respecting the lives of all living beings. Thank you (especially from Corno the turkey below, best friend of Esther the Wonder Pig.)

what CAN'T milk do?

...is the tagline at the end of a commercial produced by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (see video below if you must...)

I would now like to answer their question.

Milk (produced FOR calves but stolen by humans) and/or the dairy industry itself:

• CAN'T claim to be healthy
• CAN'T claim to be all natural as it's still processed and fortified with Vitamin D (just like plant milks, but at least they don't pretend otherwise)
• CAN'T claim to be healthy and natural when a good chunk of the global population has a reduced ability to even digest lactose
• CAN'T claim to be ethical
• CAN'T claim to be cruelty-free
• CAN'T claim not to involve theft of living beings from their rightful parents
• CAN'T claim not to be stealing the nourishment meant for calves
• CAN'T claim not to be in possession of stolen goods
• CAN'T claim not to be trafficking in stolen goods
• CAN'T claim not to be in possession of property obtained by crime for the purposes of trafficking (the last 3 points being legal criminal offences, no?)
• CAN'T claim not to be actively involved in misleading or false advertising (remember the "there are zero growth hormones in milk produced in Canada" scandal of 2019?)
• CAN'T claim exclusive rights to the word milk (the white juice of certain plants), although it has certainly tried
• CAN'T claim to still be part of a food group in the revamped Canada Food Guide
• CAN'T claim (unlike plant milks) increased annual consumption* 
• CAN'T live up to its claim of Dairy Done Right 
• CAN'T be considered truthful or transparent
• CAN'T possibly be excused for dumping gazillions of gallons of milk during COVID-19 (couldn't you at least have donated to local food banks instead?)
• and CAN'T possibly be excused for the killing of who knows how many of its producers (the cows themselves) during the pandemic either

* in fact, on p24 of their 2018 Dairy Sector Overview Dairy Farmers of Canada themselves admit that: "Moreover, over the past 20 years, the consumption rate of milk products has changed—the consumption of fluid milk has dramatically declined, while cheese and yogurt have increased…" (The report is quite interesting. Did you know that milk yield increases per cow = more than 157% over the past 43 years? They act as if that's a good thing, of course. Page 14 talks about the bailout packages to the dairy industry in other countries, page 17 mentions the Dairy Farm Investment Program, and p19-20 bemoans the revised Canada Food Guide.)  

Well! That's an awful lot of CAN'Ts, if you ask me.

In short, there's more that milk can't do, than can, as evidenced by the silly lengths it went to in trying to prove otherwise:

===============================================================

Oh, and this post reminds me that of all of my animal rights messaging t-shirts, the one that gets the most negative reaction is the one with the caption Not Your Mom, Not Your Milk. While my other "friendlier" ones (e.g., image of cute animals with the caption Friends, Not Food) tend to elicit smiles and enthusiastic agreement, the Milk one, not so much. Maybe too close to the bone? Have to admit I usually wear it on days when I really don't care if I piss people off or not, snort.

'serenity and peace' or an attempt to silence protest? (Bill 156)

Well, you know my view on the matter, but this was one of the write-ups in response to the passing of Bill 156.

The comment at the bottom is mine, but it's a condensed version as I was only allowed 750 characters, including spaces. So, not enough space to say my piece. Below is a longer version. It was originally intended as a letter to the editor (which I would then have to cut down to 320 words), but the article itself wasn't published offline, therefore I decided not to bother submitting. 

Here is the long-winded version:

While I appreciate the reporter trying to provide a balanced view, here are some key points to consider.

Two themes in particular I’ve seen repeatedly put forth by proponents of the ag-gag law concern safety and disease. Farmers, apparently, are highly worried about safety. But safety of what? Their livelihood? Their reputation? That seems probable enough. Animals themselves though? That’s a bit dubious as they’re raised a) for profit, and b) to be killed, so I don’t think animals themselves will be “safe” for too long.

As for personal threats by trespassers, where are the statistics to back up this claim? How many farmers have actually been harmed or killed? And given the recent death (viewed as intentional by some) of activist Regan Russell, I would argue that activists may have more to fear from farmers and truckers than vice versa.

But back to stats. How many incidents of trespassing on Ontario family farms were actually reported to police in the last few years? How many charges were laid? How many convictions resulted? In other words, how have trespassers proven to be a real safety risk? Hmm, I see.

Another aspect often cited is that activist trespassing brings disease. But, as we know from prior zoonotic viruses like bird and swine flu, disease is already a part of farming because of the very practices that activists are trying to make public. The current Covid-19 pandemic itself underscores how infectious disease is a byproduct of farming and marketing animals.

And if things have changed considerably since 1989 as claimed by Mr. Witteveen, then why is it still considered reasonable to transport pigs, for example, without food, water, or rest for 28 hours? How is this humane? Why are certain practices, such as the killing of all male chicks, and the slamming of piglets into concrete walls, still considered both acceptable and standard?

Why are standard farming practices exempt from cruelty laws in the first place? That, in and of itself, makes the so-called tough anti-cruelty legislation of PAWS null and void, especially since the only duty to report in the PAWS Act lies with veterinarians, not employees. This makes Ernie Hardeman’s statement that nothing prevents employees from reporting animal abuse disingenuous at best.

The reality is that most animal farming industries would have died a natural death anyway were it not for being continually propped up by government bailouts. And now with Bill 156 we have a government turning an even blinder eye to industry promoted-and-protected cruelty by allowing animal agriculture to police itself.

No, the idea that this bill is balanced is so off-kilter it’d be funny if it weren’t so damn sad. 

For anyone interested in the true and harrowing dangers of the bill I would suggest looking at the comprehensive brief submitted by Animal Justice:

https://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-05-09-Animal-Justice-Submission-to-General-Government-Committee.pdf

MPPs who voted in favour of Ontario's ag-gag Bill 156

As you know, the third reading of Bill 156 passed by 68-22, with 25 MPPs not voting.

It will be rightfully challenged in court, and I encourage you to support Animal Justice in their bid to overturn it. Also, read their brief to the Standing Committee on General Government, which will make this bill and its consequences even more chilling than you thought you already knew. This is scary stuff, people.

In the meantime, here are the names and email addresses* of those who helped pass this monstrous bill. It's on public record, so it's not like their privacy is being invaded. Besides, if they really believe the bill is necessary as farmers have nothing to hide, then their vote shouldn't be hidden either. Feel free to let them know why you're both angry and disappointed.

Deepak Anand- [email protected]
Roman Baber- [email protected]
Aris Babikian- [email protected]
Robert Bailey- [email protected]
Toby Barrett- [email protected]
Peter Bethlenfalvy- [email protected]
Stephen Blais- [email protected]
Will Bouma- [email protected]
Paul Calandra- [email protected]
Stan Cho (Willowdale)- [email protected]
Steve Clark- [email protected]
Lorne Coe- [email protected]
Stephen Crawford- [email protected]
Rudy Cuzzeto- [email protected]
Doug Downey- [email protected]
Jill Dunlop- [email protected]
Christine Elliot- [email protected]
Victor Fedeli- [email protected]
Amy Fee- [email protected]
John Fraser- [email protected]
Merrilee Fullerton- [email protected]
Goldie Ghamari- [email protected]
Parm Gill- [email protected]
Mike Harris- [email protected]
Christine Hogarth- [email protected]
Sylvia Jones- [email protected]
Belinda C. Karahalios- [email protected]
Vincent Ke- [email protected]
Andrea Khanjin- [email protected]
Daryl Kramp- [email protected]
Naatalia Kusendova- [email protected]
Lisa MacLeod- [email protected]
Robin [email protected]
Gila Martow- [email protected]
Jim McDonell- [email protected]
Jane McKenna- [email protected]
Monte McNaughton- [email protected]
Norman Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka)- [email protected]
Christina Maria Mitas- [email protected]
Caroline Mulroney- [email protected]
Rick Nicholls- [email protected]
Sam Oosterhoff- [email protected]
Billy Pang- [email protected]
Lindsey Park- [email protected]
Michael Parsa- [email protected]
Randy Pettapiece- [email protected]
Rod Phillips- [email protected]
David Piccini- [email protected]
Kaleed Rasheed- [email protected]
Jeremy Roberts- [email protected]
Ross Romano- [email protected]
Sheref Sabawy- [email protected]
Amarjot Sandhu- [email protected]
Laurie Scott- [email protected]
Amanda Simard- [email protected]
Donna Skelly- [email protected]
Todd Smith (Bay of Quinte)- [email protected]
Dave Smith (Peterborough—Kawartha)- [email protected]
Kinga Surma- [email protected]
Nina Tangri- [email protected]
Vijay Thanigasalam- [email protected]
Lisa M.Thompson- [email protected]
Michael A. Tibollo- [email protected]
Effie J. Triantafilopoulos-- [email protected]
Daisy Wai- [email protected]
Bill Walker- [email protected]
John Yakabuski- [email protected]
Jeff Yurek- [email protected]

* compiled by Dog Tales Rescue and Sanctuary

Ontario's ag-gag Bill 156

Like many of you, I'm pissed off. Royally so. A good thing too that I didn't have much hope, given that the bill passed a second reading with a unanimous vote of 100-0 (how incredibly screwed up is that?), but still. I'm angry, disappointed, upset, outraged, and sad. (Note: third reading passed 68-22, so I guess some progress was made.)

Luckily, perhaps, I can no longer log onto my Facebook account (someone complained last year that my profile was not following Community Standards, but that's a post for another day); otherwise I'd have let off some pretty angry steam on that site. I did, however, come out of a 3-year dormancy on my Twitter account yesterday, before remembering why I'd gone dormant in the first place. Because besides being an enormous time suck, you end up either preaching to the choir, or leaving angry/snarky responses to people/organizations (e.g., Ontario Pork Producers who are very concerned about the mental health of farmers unfairly victimized by abusive extremist activists) whose views are so firmly entrenched that you might as well be trying to convince a hardcore staunch Trump supporter to vote for Joe Biden.

In other words, it doesn't help. 

Especially in my part of Ontario that couldn't be bluer than blue politically, and is home to many farms and farmers. A lot of them, by the way, happen to be not only of Dutch descent (I'm a first-generation Dutch immigrant born in Holland, so have no qualms about discussing general characteristics of my own ethnic group), but also of a fairly strict and conservative Christian upbringing (as a member of this upbringing, also no qualms), and this is key.

Key because in this strongly upheld patriarchal hierarchy, God is top, Jesus is next, then comes the Holy Ghost, followed by men (literally, not mankind in general, but men), women, children, and finally, and usually reluctantly, animals. Maybe this is true for other religions and ethnicities as well, but I find it so strongly expressed that it's fairly common knowledge that domestic abuse is rife within the Christian Reformed Church. Because, you know, women have to be submissive to their fathers and husbands and all that.

I'm also reminded of a huge billboard that I saw while being driven in a more rural part of this place that not only declared abortion to be the most sinful thing anyone could do (by the way, there's a systematic campaign by members of these churches to elect government officials at all levels of government solely on the issue of whether candidates are pro-life), but that actually mocked in the same billboard anyone concerned with animal cruelty. I kid you not. Half of the billboard had an image of a fetus, the other half a puppy, with the captions more or less saying, animal cruelty okay, abortion not. I might be exaggerating slightly, but I remember being shocked, and that doesn't happen too often anymore.

So what I'm trying to say in a long-winded way, is that the notion of animals being property, and specifically, property to be used by man in any which way deemed useful or profitable, may be even stronger in this part of the woods than elsewhere.

Oh, but also in Alberta (which already has its own ag-gag law that Ontario eagerly imitated), BC and the Maritimes. And in case you think I'm making this Dutch demographic stuff up, here are some quotes from a book* I happen to own:

A look through the national poultry magazine's annual Who's Who reveals a strong Dutch presence in egg, turkey and broiler producers. p268

But it must be acknowledged that many within the Dutch Canadian community have assumed leadership positions in farming organizations. Nationally, the chair of the Canadian Egg Marketing Board in 1999 was (name omitted as it's likely out of date by now), and at the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, (name omitted for same reason). (Name omitted) was an executive member of the Chicken Farmers of Canada, while (name omitted) headed the department of Animal and Poultry Science at the University of Saskatchewan. p270

Now I'm not saying that only farmers of Dutch descent adhere to a "animals are ours to use" mentality, but that it may be even more strongly held or prevalent, and that would effect the industry wherever they are. And they're certainly here in Ontario!

Getting back to the bill, here it is in its entirety, and here is the submission by the influential OFA. Reading through their submission I have to admit that if I was just a casually if-at-all informed member of the public, I too might be swayed by their rhetoric and feel sorry for the poor disrespected farmers who love the animals they take good care of and are bullied by activists who aren't misguided, but plain mean. Well!

Okay, if you're a reader of this blog then I certainly don't have to tell you what this bill means, why it's atrocious, and that it's gotta go. 

But what do we do in the meantime? What do we do with our anger? (Other than posting all over farmers' and farming organization media accounts that they're parasitic scumbags who deserve to rot in hell, which I confess I'm still tempted to do.)

This is the plan for me for now:

• take the time to grieve (as this will have a huge negative impact on animals already in dire situations)
• take time to feel all my feelings (e.g., disappointment, helplessness, worry, etc.)
• take the time to feel my anger fully (without being too stupid, as that could backfire for those we're trying to help)
• figure out how to channel that anger constructively (what can I do that will make a difference? how can I help to get this bill declared unconstitutional?)
• figure out how to pace myself (make no mistake, this is gonna be a long war with many battles)
• make sure to leave some room for joy and fun to prevent burnout
• be prepared to get arrested! (only kidding, but it's probably wise for you not to know too much, again kidding, maybe...)

What about you? Any points you'd like to add to make all of us better warriors, and better equipped to deal with this colossal fuck-up?

p.s. can you tell I'm still boiling? maybe I should have calmed down a bit first?

* Uprooted: Dutch Immigrant Children in Canada 1947-1959 by Anne van Arragon Hutten, 2001.

hope is not required

Whether it's climate or another issue, you don't have to feel hope to be motivated to keep fighting for what you believe in. Find something that pushes you to do what is right even when the future looks bleak. Maybe even especially when the future looks bleak. 

Oddly enough, I found the above passage*, written by first-year Stockholm University student and organizer in the Fridays for Future climate movement, Isabelle Axelson, so freeing, that it actually made me feel more energized, and paradoxically perhaps, even a bit more hopeful. 

Because hope (defined by Wikipedia as being an optimistic state of mind that is based on an expectation of positive outcomes with respect to events and circumstances in one's life or the world at large) is something I don't really have. Not in terms of seeing a vastly improved world for animals within my lifetime, that is. And that, I believe, held me back. Almost as if I thought hope was a prerequisite for being an effective advocate, and that if I didn't feel hopeful, there wouldn't be much use in trying.

Well, forget that! Feeling hopeless doesn't preclude taking action. Take Bill 156 (as in please, take it and throw it away), an awful piece of "ag-gag" legislation that will have its final vote tomorrow. I wrote about it to my local MPP, not because I'm hopeful they'll change their mind (it was touted as an accomplishment in their spring update), but to at least let them know that not every constituent agrees. Same thing in the follow-up email I sent to their canned reply.  

Also wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper (unfortunately not yet published, if ever it will be) appealing to readers to contact their MPP as well. Again, not hopeful of results as such, but wanting to be on the record that not everyone agrees. If this bill passes, it will not be without vocal opposition, or I expect, a legal challenge.

So basically, hope is lovely, but not essential. Action, however, certainly is.

* read in the June 1-8, 2020 issue of TIME

almost everything you need to know about the cruelty of milk

Marla Rose (aka the Vegan Feminist Agitator) from Vegan Street, wrote an excellent article this past summer called The Myth of Harmlessness: The Real Underbelly of the Dairy Industry that is definitely worth a read.

My take on it?

In short, producing dairy is an act (or series of acts) of violence. And if you oppose cruelty, theft, kidnapping and murder, then you can't justify consuming the products of such violence. Because even if it isn't considered criminal by the legal system yet, it's most certainly immoral.

hiatus interruptus: when words fail

Came across a passage in a book recently (I read daily no matter what else is going on in my life) lamenting how we don't have a real word for men who kill women, whereas the term "man-hater" is used so often you would think actual harm is caused by those accused of being one. And even though not new, this observation still strikes me every time I see it. They also rightly asserted that while we do have "misogynist", this too clinical and too academic-sounding word doesn't do the concept justice. 

It's ironic that man-hater is usually directed at those who don't actually hate men, but who do object to hateful actions that hurt everyone. Man-hater is especially lobbed against those who question the status quo, and who fight to eradicate gender inequality. Actually, no, you just have to look like you're not living up to outdated gender expectations and you can expect to have this word spat out at you. Feminist is another term that when not used by like-minded peers, is more apt to be hissed, snarled, or accompanied by spittle than merely said. Just like the term "man-hater", these words are often hurled in anger or contempt. Fear too, because how dare people, women especially, assert their right not to be subservient. An interesting word, subservient, as you can practically see the words serve, servile and servant floating within it.

Man-hater. But if you think about it, how many acts of physical violence resulting in bodily harm or death are caused by these so-called man-haters? How many injuries, rapes, other sexual assaults, or murders? Leaving verbal and other forms of violence aside for now, how much physical damage do victims of man-hating actually endure? 

Then think about the instances of physical assault, sexual assault, rape and death experienced by women. Without even looking up statistics, I know the numbers are staggering and frightening, but woman-hater isn't a term that's regularly used to describe the perpetrators of these acts. One could argue however, that evidence indicates we live in a rape culture, which is part of a larger woman-hating culture. So why is the more accurate term woman-hater rarely used?

Another word that I almost never see used relates to dehumanization. Loosely defined, to dehumanize refers to an act or process of depriving a person or group of human qualities. A terrible thing, obviously. A synonym for this is animalize, meaning to cause to be or act like an animal. Leaving aside the inherent anthropocentric bias (we've all heard phrases like, they're no better than animals!), why (and this is more of a rhetorical question) do we not use the term deanimalize to describe a similar process against animals? 

A paltry 2,540 results when Googled, it seems to me that this lack of acknowledgement of the horrendous injustice done to individual beings and groups on a daily and worldwide basis deserves greater use of the term. We routinely strip animals of their animalhood (personhood some would even say), that is, the essential qualities that make them a sentient being and not an object, and don't give it a second thought. It begins with the use of the word "it" to describe most animals instead of he or she, words like pork instead of pig, beef instead of cow, television commercials about eggs that don't even show or mention chickens, and of course the routine farming practices we all abhor. Language is twisted and doesn't include the appropriate naming of what would be considered theft, kidnapping, rape and murder if the victims were human.

Animals, male and female, old and young, sick and healthy, are instead treated as inanimate objects, products of consumption and cogs of a vast and vile agricultural machine. In short, living beings with their own interests are rendered invisible, and the very act of invisibling is made invisible for most people as well. So another word almost completely missing from our vocabulary is animal-hater, and really, what word better describes a person who kidnaps and kills without fear of punishment because of a victim's species? Animal-hating (even though it isn't defined as such) is very much a part of our culture and that of others, so it seems absurd to have many who condone animal cruelty refer to themselves as animal-lover simply because they favour a couple of specific species. Love isn't even necessary; animal-respecter would be nice enough.

Man-hater, animal-lover. Woman-hater, animal-hater. So much hate, but not enough words to identify accurately where the real hatred is coming from, and whom it's actually aimed at. A lot of fakery in other words, and sadly, in today's political climate, even the word "fake" is now failing. The difference between fake and genuine was once more easily discerned, but nowadays fake seems to be applied by some to anything they don't want to hear. In some ways even topsy-turvy is now better thought of as turvy-topsy, as if things weren't bad enough before.

Words fail when they mean the exact opposite, when they conceal what's really going on, and when we don't even have proper names to describe what's happening. Words in this post fail too, of course, because of what I've left out. While I've talked (the words briefly outlined would perhaps be more accurate) about some of the words that fail women and animals, I haven't even touched upon words that fail humans who, for example, aren't white. And I haven't mentioned the most important word, the word that's at the heart of misnaming or not naming at all, and the word at the root of harm to different groups of beings whether based on categories like class, race, gender, ability, orientation or even species.

I love words, but even I often fail to do them, and you the reader, any real justice.

new year, old battle

Can you believe 2017's here? At the beginning of each new year I like to start with an encouraging/optimistic post, and my favourite of that kind is one I sometimes feel could be reused every year. This year, however, no such post is bubbling up. 

I'm still struggling with the disappointment of the US election and the reality of the Donald being in power, and I resent the fact that December 19 (the anniversary of my cat's death) will now always be linked to his official election by the Electoral College. My antipathy towards this doofus was made clear in prior posts, and while you may wonder why the election of an American president would bother this Canadian resident so much, it's because I fear that social justice for all creatures will take a huge step backwards. His cabinet picks so far bear this out.

I will outline why the election was a bad one for animals, and then hope to be done discussing this despicable man once and for all. It's the only way I can cope I'm afraid, and as childish as this outlandish man is himself, I may have to resort to shutting my eyes and ears whenever I hear his name on any kind of media. I know, that means I won't be hearing or seeing much over the next four (two?) years, snort.

Stress and sadness over other non-political issues have also been key this past year, and while I posted earlier about burnout, acknowledging and addressing it are two different things. I hope to recover a bit more joy and enthusiasm before year's end, write the posts I've been meaning to, and focus on how to be a better advocate, because sometimes I feel that my having been vegan for the past eight years has accomplished diddly squat for those I'm fighting for.

So, who has Donald picked so far and why is that bad for animals, human and non-human alike? Well, in a nutshell, and with few exceptions, Trump has surrounded himself with old, ultra-rich white men who have shown no interest in protecting the environment, animals, or humans who don't fit their own demographic. Far from draining any kind of swamp, Trump is simply making it swampier and more dangerous for those who don't look like him. 

Flooding the swamp he promised to drain with people who are anti environment, pro oil, pro gas, climate-change skeptics, pro big business, pro animal agriculture, pro factory farming, anti animal-rights, and anti public health care folk who tend to see everything in black and white, they wouldn't recognize a nuance if it bonked them on the head. The only regard they seem to have is for dollar signs. To people, sentient beings of all kind, and the planet itself, they're saying a big FU.

Trump's own two sons show complete disregard for wildlife by participating in the "sport" of trophy hunting, something that Donald is actually proud of. And given that the elder Trump is babysat by his own kids, their influence on his stance where animals are concerned can only be suspect. No, I'm afraid that the trumpnoxious (Trump-style brand of obnoxniousness) President-elect, his silly trumptirades (usually conducted on Twitter), and his downright scary-as-hell cabinet picks are filling me with nothing but trumpidation (the specific trepidation felt by almost everything the Trumpster says and does). The only silver lining is that perhaps things really do have to hit a rock bottom we didn't even envision before the world wakes up to the nightmare that the human species has created.

The stakes have NEVER been higher. And if we thought it was a battle before to have the rights of sentient beings recognized and respected, to have veganism be more than a scoffed-at movement consisting of a few, than I would say it's looking more like a war. As I said, I don't feel particularly encouraged or optimistic right now, and that's something I hope will change over the course of this year. In the meantime, let's all soldier on, because every single living being is counting on us. 

Not a great way to begin the year and end this post I know, so please reread my way-better-way-to-begin welcome of a few years ago. :)

mercy and Thanksgiving

Tomorrow, Canada celebrates Thanksgiving. (Although in some ways, in my opinion, it may as well be called Thanks-taking for all the harm done to innocent beings.) And while last November I took a different (more generous?) approach when I talked about the occasion as Americans celebrated it, this year I want to focus on mercy. Or the lack thereof.

Because this past week has been merciless when it comes to animals in Canada, and even though it's Thanksgiving weekend, I'm still feeling more angry than thankful. As most of you may know, there was a horrible incident involving 180 pigs in a trailer rollover that left many vegans reeling. I don't want to retell the awful details (some of which you can find in the links posted below), but this incident (in many ways the word accident is insulting) demonstrated just how vile and merciless this industry actually is. 

These posts will fill in the background for those not familiar with what happened, and provide good commentary for those who are:

• The Crime of Indifference
• Blinders, Barriers, and Bearing Witness
• After the Fearman's Pig Tragedy

On the same day that this travesty occurred, Bill C-246 (which would have updated Canada's antiquated animal cruelty laws) was defeated 198-84. This bill originally included things like changing the definition of bestiality, banning the import of shark fins, cat and dog fur, and making it a crime to profit from or breed animals for the purpose of fighting. This, apparently, worried supporters of hunting, trapping, fishing, ranching and medical research. So they said, essentially, screw animals.

My Houghton Mifflin Canadian Dictionary of the English Language defines mercy as "Kind and compassionate treatment of an offender, enemy, prisoner or other person [being] under one's power." 

Where was mercy shown this week? 

• not by staff of Fearmans Pork Inc.
• not by management of Sofina Foods 
• not by the manager of communications with Ontario Pork
• not by Halton Regional Police officers (they charged Anita Krajnc AGAIN)
• not by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
• not by vets
• not by representatives of the Ministry of Transportation
• not by some of the media outlets and consumers, and
• not by members who opposed Bill C-246

In fact, more mercy was shown by some of the injured and needlessly killed pigs themselves (this haunting photo and others was originally taken by Andrea White), toward each other:

 

But I'm trying to remember that there ARE a lot of folk to be thankful for, and that mercy IS plentiful, as shown by:

• members of Toronto Pig Save (including Cow Save and Chicken Save)
• hero Anita Krajnc
• supporters of Anita and all those who attend vigils and bear witness
• everyone who expressed outrage at what happened in Burlington
• sanctuary supporters and founders (including Esther's dads of course!) 
• animal rescuers who work tirelessly without being in the spotlight, and
• anyone trying to bring about change for all animals

I'm also thankful that I can virtually visit with Esther and other sentient beings. They give me strength, respite, resolve, and comfort. 

Rest in peace, sweet pigs. We will NEVER forget you.

 

we animals... (and another quick quiz)

...deserve to rot in hell.

Never has one book filled me with so much loathing for the human species.* And it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the information We Animals contains, so maybe it's the images, as gripping and often non-graphic as they are, that set me on edge. The book IS excellent, and I still highly recommend it, but unfortunately, it fills me with a disgust and despair that differs in degree from anything else I've read or seen. Maybe because it's so encompassing, detailing the numerous ways in which humans can be cruel, callous, and ignorant, that evokes my strong reaction. The result though, even after getting through a few more pages than before, is cursing so prolific that even I'm embarrassed, and a wishing of terrible things upon my fellow humans. Not exactly peaceful, or compassionate, and definitely not helpful.

It makes me wish that if there were an afterlife it'd be reserved for non-human beings only, as too many of them have already suffered a lifetime of hell in their too short, and too miserable, lives. It makes me wonder why the majority of believers are convinced they'll be going to heaven (is there anyone who actually thinks they're hell-bound, and what the hell is up with religious mobsters for Pete's sake?), and it makes me even more pessimistic than I already am. It makes me feel that there's no hope (which is why I have to get through these awful beginning chapters and get to the more hopeful ones), and that as long as humans are alive, animal exploitation won't end. It makes me think that only self-inflicted extinction of the human species (under a watchful/wrathful? eye of Mother Nature) will end the horror we inflict on all beings.

I'm assuming my reaction is not what the author was aiming for, and not what most readers have or will experience, so my response is likely not typical and that's a good thing. So for the sake of my blood pressure, temper, and indiscriminate ill-will toward other innocent and not-so-innocent human beings, I'll do what I often do in situations like this -- make a virtual visit to go see Esther and the rest of the HEEFS gang. A distraction no doubt, but probably better for me, you, and everyone else. :)

Oh, here's an interesting Essential Species Quiz and a post by the same author talking about misanthropy in a way that makes quite a bit of sense to me.

And if you think the word misanthropy should have no place in a vegan vocabulary, how else would you respond to this poor excuse of a human being who runs a whole hog barbecue restaurant called Arrogant Swine (choice words come to mind about both the name and concept, but I'm trying to be polite here), and had this to say about vegan barbecue:

"Vegan BBQ is as nonsensical of a term as pork-chop sushi or composing a garden salad out of candy bars," Ho said. "BBQ centers around the philosophy of contextual communal feasting. Smoked seitan is violently antithetical to that. Rather than call to mind the excessive feasting of laborers at the end of the fall harvest, it's an anemic dietary constraint. Rather than a celebration of abundance, it's a solution to a problem no one wanted solved."

Sounds to me like he's feeling quite threatened by the idea of vegans encroaching on his perceived territory, and is himself spewing nonsensical verbiage (um, philosophy of contextual community feasting?) as a lame defense of his repulsive occupation. But I don't want to end this post on a sour note, so here's a sweet image of how hogs and other animals could/should be treated -- as part of a family, human or otherwise.

* obviously not all members of it, and I do recognize that some groups of members are more culpable than others...

world week for animals in laboratories 2016

This past Sunday was World Day for Animals in Laboratories, and no matter how many times I've written about this day or week (e.g., 2012, 2014) it doesn't get any easier. In prepping for this year's post, I had wanted to read and watch the following:

The books include We Animals by the terrific Jo-Anne McArthur, and the recently published They All Had Eyes by former vivisectionist Michael A. Slusher. The DVD is directed by the talented Karol Orzechowski and its title, Maximum Tolerated Dose, refers to "An animal/human experiment to find the highest dose of a chemical that, when administered to a group of test subjects in a clinical trial, does not result in a fatality due to short-term toxicity." (Definition taken from About Page in link above.)

And while I've had the DVD and We Animals for quite some time, I haven't been able to watch or read either one. Actually, I did crack open We Animals when I first received it, but unfortunately, the first image I saw was that of a lab cat whose head had literally been cut in half. Haven't been able to open it since. Even the cover image is as haunting as the illustration on the book behind it, and it's as if I dread the words and sights contained therein. These are important words and images for sure, and I intend to view them all at some point no matter how painful it may be, but not quite yet. Oh, haven't been able to read Mark Twain's A Dog's Tale yet either.

You can imagine though how horrific animal experimentation must be for the beings who actually have to endure the "white coated cruelty" and "socially sanctioned crimes" (credit for terms goes to veganelder -- see comment in 2012 post) that at the moment I can't bear witness to. For it's the never-ending assault on their dignity, well-being, emotional and physical health, never mind their very existence, and for what? Essentially, as in all other forms of animal use/abuse, for monetary gain. Because while the public may like to believe that animal research is necessary to improve human health, this claim is dubious at best.

As mentioned in the 2012 post, there's something about vivisection that I find particularly appalling, and in addition to the reasons outlined in that post, I'm going to try to figure out why. Why does this one form of animal use/abuse strike me as even more evil than the rest? Why can I not think about this form of use without getting images of Dr. Mengele in my head?

Because it's not as if all the other forms of use are less heinous or cruel. Using animals for entertainment is so pathetic and inane it'd be laughable if there weren't dire consequences for its victims. Animals turned into clothing might have made some sense in the Stone Age, but in this age there just isn't any need. And the most prolific use by turning other animals into food has the greatest impact in terms of cruelty suffered by other species.

So again, why my revulsion with experimentation?  Is it because some of the other uses have roots in once being required for physical survival? That the history of transforming other beings into fur and food stretches so far back that it's more understandable even to this vegan's mind? Is it because I once participated directly myself? Is it because I can even muster up more understanding for workers who may get caught in the vicious cycle of torturing other beings for food because they don't have the financial means to say no to this kind of labour that the more privileged of us would not even consider doing? Even though I hate what they do?

Or is it that I resent the fact that intelligent, well-educated, and privilege-laden individuals turn the cruel nightmare of animal research into an even more twisted and perverted horror show by insisting that that this is morally right, and intrinsically necessary for human progress. I wonder if part of what I object to isn't the callous and calculating stance. Yes, footage of workers mistreating other animals is both awful and awful to watch, but at least there's emotion. You can almost even identify to a degree with workers feeling frustrated and exhausted with their low-paying jobs that pressure them to continually speed up their labour at management behest.

But it's the clinical detachment of scientists and technicians reducing living beings to inanimate parts and tools of research (in addition to the cruelty) that chills me to the bone. Watching individuals that I otherwise like and respect, such as Dr. Suzuki, casually utter terms like MTD (maximum tolerated dose) and TD50 (the dose that causes tumours in 50% of animals that would otherwise be tumour-free) as if they're mathematical abbreviations with no living beings attached, angers me.

As does the ability to do horrendous things to a cat, dog or rabbit at work, and yet go home and pet a member of the same species. It's the disconnect that baffles me. If you wouldn't subject the dog living in your home to vile and useless experiments, how can you march into work and do it there?

How can you stand to inflict suffering on an innocent being under the guise of science when the average layperson can easily answer silly questions such as: should pregnant women smoke? is maternal deprivation harmful? It's ludicrous beyond words. But, like every other form of animal use, profitable. Make no mistake, big bucks, egos and reputations are involved. Otherwise, smart-enough individuals would recognize the psychopathology inherent in psychiatry department heads insisting that duplicating maternal deprivation studies, for example, make sense.

Methinks there's something especially sinister and malevolent in assaulting other animals in the name of science. It's whitewashed terrorism, sanctioned and made out to be something noble even though it's anything but. So, even if the number of victims pale in comparison to those caught in the industrial food complex, please don't forget sacrificed beings in laboratories. 

this ain't no joke

(Actually, the joke was on me as this post was supposed to be published on April 1, just as my Easter post was gonna be posted on Easter, snort, but life got in the way.)

Sometimes, of late, it's starting to feel like every day is becoming April Fools' Day. In addition to the never-ending hoaxes perpetrated by industrial agriculture on both people and animals alike (Certified Humane, anyone?), this mad world seems to be getting madder by the minute in a myriad number of ways. Take the US election. (No, please, take it and make it go away already.)

Folk around the world are bewildered and baffled that a buffoon like Trump could have gotten this far. On the other hand, Canadian-born climate-change denier and he-said-what? ("...the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats") Cruz is just as scary. And as tempting as it may be to say that if American voters want either one of these jerks as their leader then they'll get what they deserve, unfortunately other countries will be impacted by this vote as well. Which isn't to say that Canadian voters, for example, have always been wise either (look at how long dictatorially inclined Stephen Harper was in power), but their vote didn't have quite the global impact the US election results will have.

Here in Canada, the Jian Ghomeshi debacle captured our attention and outrage. Sure, this case should not have gone to trial and the outcome was no surprise, but it still felt like it might as well have taken place 50 years ago. Because while the admittedly damn-good-at-her-job Marie Henein might feel that justice was served and that the Canadian justice system does an equally good job when it comes to sexual assault cases, I beg to differ.

First, winning and justice are two very different concepts that should not get confused. Second, while it's nice to pretend that objectivity and impartiality rule, let's at least admit that even judges bring their own biases to the courtroom. Especially as to how women who report sexual assault ought to behave. And really, that is ultimately the crux of any rape trial -- not whether an accused obtained consent, but whether the accuser can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't give consent. The default position is that consent took place, which is weird when you consider that we don't require that people who are robbed, for example, prove that they didn't want to be robbed.

Put another way, women and men who report sexual assault have to prove that they're not sleazy lying skanks, and that everything they say or do before, during and after the assault (never mind that people react differently to trauma) can be used to prove their skankiness. So in the case of Ghomeshi who didn't even have to testify, it was the accusers who were asked to prove that they had not actually wanted to be punched, choked or have their hair pulled. Yes, they were not good witnesses (hence my belief that this case shouldn't have gone to trial), but unfortunately even the most perfect victims, if you will, face the same illogical burden of proof.

Third, just look at the statistics below. How can anyone think that with a conviction rate as ridiculously low as .03 percent that our justice system works when it comes to sexual assault? No, the system is a complete failure in this regard (see paragraph above), and should be considered an insult to, and by, everyone. 

 

And when it comes to assault, women are almost never served. How often don't you hear, "why doesn't she just leave?" (instead of insisting that the perpetrator leave) when it comes to domestic violence? Because sadly, it's when she does leave that her life is really in danger. More women are killed after they leave their abusive spouse because despite the rhetoric of women and children being valued in our society, the evidence illustrates they're not. Notice that we seldom ask, "why does he abuse?" just as the emphasis is usually on women to prevent being raped, rather than on rapists to stop raping.

No, the REAL domestic terrorism happening in Canada, the US and other countries worldwide is the accepted violence perpetrated on women and children in their own homes, on the streets, in the workplace and as a weapon of war. In other words, everywhere, and every single day. I also have no problem including violence done to other animals (rather than on behalf of) in the definition of domestic terrorism.

So why am I talking about politics, sexual assault and domestic violence on a vegan blog? Well, in part because animal cruelty often accompanies domestic violence. Many abused women report having had their animal companion threatened, hurt or killed as part of the abusive behaviour of their spouse. Women can be reluctant to leave because of these threats, and not all shelters accept companion animals. Statistics also indicate that children exposed to domestic violence exhibit higher rates of abuse toward animals, so the links between human and animal abuse are at least starting to be more recognized. 

But essentially, I think and talk about this stuff because violence and oppression are not species-specific. That is, the targets may be different, but the roots are the same. And as the Ghomeshi trial has shown, boy do we have a long way to go, baby. And that, dear readers, ain't no joke.

happy world day for farmed animals?

October 2 is World Day for Farmed Animals, and in looking for an image on Google, I came across several graphics with sweet lambs, ducks or calves sporting an enthusiastic "Happy World Day for Farmed Animals!" caption. Totally understand, and yet the word happy threw me off a bit as life for farmed animals is anything but happy, no matter what day it is. I truly hope no one still believes that farmed animals lead an idyllic life as illustrated in the awesomely cute image below, with the exception perhaps for those lucky enough to live in a sanctuary.

I even ran across one image that really had me gobsmacked until I went to the blog where it was linked to (not the blog mentioned in the pic) and realized that the dairy farmer in question was so thoroughly indoctrinated that they truly believe all sorts of nonsense such as: cow's milk is nutritious for humans, cows enjoy being milked by mechanical means, dairy farming is a noble and praiseworthy endeavour, blah blah blah.

Reality for farmed animals, as we all should know, is the exact opposite of happy and then some. Words like misery, suffering, cruelty, torture, hell and death are the words that I associate with this day (and every other day that sentient beings continue to be farmed), and it's up to vegans to remind others of the horrors that no farmed animal is spared.

Some are even willing to show their solidarity for farmed beings by participating in a one-day fast, and I would urge you to do the same if you can. 

But whether you're able to fast or not (disclosure: I'm working that day and the physical nature of the job will prevent me from doing so), there are 364 other days where you can make your position on farmed animals and every other form of animal use known. Join others in the fight to make the rest of human society (ha ha, almost used the W word here, veganelder) wake up to the fact that animal use is not okay. Let's try to make each day a truly happy day for other sentient beings by:

1. letting them stay alive
2. letting them stay together with their offspring
3. letting them stay together with the friends of their choice
4. letting them participate in their natural instinctual behaviours
5. letting them make their own choices as much as possible

(Don't like the phrase "letting them" in the list above, but it shows the absolute power human beings have over others they deem less valuable.)

In short, let's leave them the hell alone! 

completely beside myself

But in a good way! 

You see, last summer I devoured Karen Joy Fowler's We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves, only to reluctantly return it to the library after renewing it twice. I knew I would have to get my own copy someday (in itself telling as I rarely reread books), so was delighted when I won a signed copy from the ALDF book club a few weeks ago. Since I don't enjoy writing book reviews (and would prefer not to give away the storyline) I won't do one here, but if you MUST read a review first, you can read the excellent one (beware of spoiler!) posted at Our Hen House.

What I will say though is that reading this book left me severely conflicted -- race through it as quickly as I can because I can't wait to find out what happens next, or savour it slowly and delay finishing so that the pleasure lasts as long as possible? Usually what happens in this case is that I'll race along for three-quarters of the book, and then slow down to a crawl that can last for weeks on end.

What I will also say is that I found this book gripping, riveting, and suspenseful. And while this book made me angry at times (as it will anyone who cares about animals), what I wasn't as prepared for was feeling so bereft, drained, and utterly sad. Like many readers I cried at the end, although wept might be a better word, which surprised me a little as I'm generally not much of a crier or weeper. (If anything, frustration is more likely to get my tear-ducts going.) I also enjoyed the real-life case histories thrown in, and the scientific details woven throughout. 

This book is also good for anyone who hasn't given much thought to animal use, but who might be scared off by books more overtly vegan. The author herself, sadly, isn't vegan, but don't let that stop you from reading or recommending this compelling tale. After all, it isn't other vegans we have to convince.

About Washoe [cross-fostered chimp 1965-2007], Roger Fouts has said, she taught him that in the phrase human being, the word being is much more important than the word human.  p158

earth day 2015

Hard to believe that Earth Day has been commemorated for 45 years now, and I have to admit that the more cynical part of me wonders how much we've really achieved in that time. Given the ongoing problems with global warming, pollution, oil spills, other environmental degradation, overpopulation, misuse of natural resources, species exploitation and extinction, the colossal disrespect human animals show towards this earth is overwhelming. Arrogance, greed, and an unwarranted superiority complex seem to trump common sense, decency and compassion when it comes to how humans interact with other species and Earth herself. So let's just hope we do better in the next 15 years, because 45 years from now it may well be too little, too late.

p.s. apparently, this is my 250th post :)

image credit: Patrick McDonnell's Mutts comic strip

why don't we have a term for hating animals?

Actually, we do, but it's so little known (I only ran across it myself a while ago) that it hardly even registers in Google search. Try looking for its cousins, and you'll find misogyny (hatred or dislike of women) coming back with a scary 1,640,000 results, misandry (hatred or dislike of men) clocking in at 1,100,000 results, and the more equal-opportunity term misanthropy (something I definitely fall prey to on occasion) yielding 542,000 results. But misothery?  A paltry 1,780 results is all you'll get. 

A shame, really, since the term itself (coined by Jim Mason in 1993) contains the resulting misery for animals right within its letters. I like this term, I really do. And it reminds me of the dangers when we don't have proper names for things so commonplace, so underlying just about everything, and yet so silent. Remember the world-changing effect when Betty Friedan described the problem that has no name? Naming is powerful, necessary, and exciting too.

The word misothery may have an awful ring to it, but I'm glad I found it, and will be adding it to my arsenal of tools to fight animal and human exploitation. Because these two types of exploitation are linked, with the one enabling and the other perhaps begetting, but definitely reinforcing. And who knows, maybe one day, certain acts of animal use and abuse will be seen more widely for what they really are: hate crimes based on species.

p.s. if you agree that this term is a damn fine one, and deserves a wider audience, please help pass it on :)