Have Gone Vegan

the day American democracy and decency died

It's been a week to the day since the election, and people around the world (not just American residents who'll be impacted first and foremost) have reacted with shock, anger, fear, sadness, bewilderment, and a host of other related emotions. The reality (and unreal feel) of this situation is still sinking in for many, and folk are not only processing, but grieving. (Interestingly enough, almost 1/4 of polled Canadians and Brits indicated they wanted Trump to win, so like their American counterparts they experienced very different emotions as the results came in.)

A key difference this time around though is that unlike the last election when progressives were happy that Democrats won, Republicans (and MAGAs in particular) are expressing a visceral glee in not only winning, but beating their opponents. Slogans like, "Your Body, My Choice" have gained traction and are being used to mock and taunt women, while racist messages were sent to vast numbers of Black people across the US saying they'd been selected to pick cotton at the nearest plantation. Not surprising I suppose when Trump's campaign was rooted in both misogyny and racism, but chilling nonetheless.

Predictably, the blame game began as soon as Harris conceded (too quickly I think, as she could have made Trump sweat a bit), with fingers pointing at Harris, the campaign, and the Democrat Party for losing. Numerous factors were cited, but any pundit confidently declaring that "She or it or they lost because..." and then only mentioning one reason has lost the plot as far as I'm concerned. No one can definitively conclude why as there were a number of overlapping causes and issues. Let's not forget either that there's been a strong global right-wing shift with many incumbent parties losing their status.

Personally I think Harris ran a strong campaign, and couldn't have done much more given the vast amount of both disinterest (nearly 14 million, or 4 out of 10 Americans, didn't even vote) and disinformation. That Trump's campaign spewed copious amounts of lies about the economy, crime, and immigration was a given. That they spread falsehoods about what they would do (e.g., improve the daily lives of the working class), and what they wouldn't do (e.g., distancing themselves from Project 2025's agenda), was also not a surprise.

But they were truthful in ways that the electorate minimized or ignored, e.g., the reality of the cost of tariffs being paid for by American consumers, what mass deportations would do to both the economy and families, the gutting of environmental regulations (Trump already rolled back 100 EPA regulations in his first term), and so forth.

But it wasn't just Trump, his minions, and billionaire friends (hello, Elon) to blame. Voters themselves couldn't be bothered to know what, or even whom, they were voting for. Google searches on election day itself spiked with queries about Joe Biden running, and searches AFTER election day included "what is a tariff" indicating that a lot of folk were clueless. Didn't know, didn't care sums up the experience of too many, which is sad when you consider what was at stake. 

This was an expensive election in more ways than one. Approximately $16B (yes, BILLION) was donated to political campaigns (think about the impact if that much money was spent on housing or health care or social supports), if not the downright purchasing of candidates for expected return favours. Soon-to-be trillionaire Musk, for example, cannot legally run for US office, but he sure did try to buy it. * He's just been selected today to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency, and if he runs/ruins it the way he did Twitter...

Monetary cost was just one price paid. Earth itself, the environment, natural resources, exacerbated climate crisis, human rights, human lives, animal lives (as one of my dear friends often and rightly points out, when things get bad for humans, non-human animals suffer concurrently as well), and even American democracy itself as the UnUnited States lurches towards autocracy.

The current administration is also to blame for not holding Trump accountable while they still had the chance, for not putting him in jail instead of allowing a felon to run for office again, not protecting the constitution, not protecting women by codifying Roe, and trying to take the high moral road with opponents who clearly no longer know what morals mean. It was no longer a level playing field which Democrats ignored at their peril, placing every voter in peril too.

What are parents supposed to teach their kids about crime now? They can no longer say that crime doesn't pay, because it does. It no longer goes unpunished, but is rewarded instead. You can commit any crime you want, and still become President. There's a moral lesson for ya! 

And why does this matter so much to non-Americans you ask? And to Canadians in particular? Because everyone will feel the effects of a Trump administration and its decisions. Economically, politically, environmentally, culturally, militarily, you name it, and as members of the global community, we'll experience the repercussions.  

As for Canada, we've already felt the impact of his first administration, most notably in how political discourse has changed for the worse. We've become almost as polarized politically as in the US, and the conservative populist playbook followed almost to the letter by our current Opposition Leader champing at the bit to become Prime Minister.

A career politician who's never had a real job but claims to be for the working class while courting millionaires and lobbyists, campaigning from the get-go two years ago even though our election campaign cycles are usually only a few months long, spouting simplistic slogans, lies and outrage, expressing disdain for the media, suggesting he'll implement ant-trans policies, and blaming immigrants for the high cost of living and housing. Sound familiar? Oh, and his team has already spent 8.5M (yes, MILLION) on advertising. It's fair to say that far-right factions in Canada were emboldened by Trump's first term, and will likely become even more so now.

Here's an amusing (although sad enough) column about how Canadians have become just as gullible and wilfully uninformed as our American neighbours when it comes to picking our political leaders. Ignore the multiple ads and enjoy.

If at the beginning of reading this post its title initially struck you as hyperbolic, I'd ask you to reconsider given the picks to his team that Trump has already made. Consider also Trump's statement (threat?) that if you voted for him this time, you'd never have to vote again.

Consider too that Trump is more a figurehead of his party and that the real danger to democracy lies with those behind him. Consider that Vice President J.D. Vance could be President sooner than anticipated given Trump's age and obvious cognitive decline (vigorously remonstrated with Joe Biden but oddly ignored when it came to Trump), and that his allegiance to the stated ideals and policies of Project 2025 are all the more dear to him. Call me hyperbolic, but I fear dark days ahead. And certainly we can expect that the hatred and vitriol won't subside anytime soon, because we've seen it amplified already.

So the biggest question now is, Now what? Stand by and watch? Not an option if you care about either decency or democracy or both. Fight like hell when shite happens, as it quickly will come January. The first 180 days especially, if you believe the Heritage Foundation folks behind Project 2025, who've been preparing their "Mandate for Leadership" manuals for conservative governments since 1981.

In the meantime, rest up Americans, and get ready. Also, as the inimitable Rebecca Solnit writes, "Authoritarians like Trump love fear, defeatism, surrender. Do not give them what they want."

For Canadians specifically, we need to resolve to not let what's happened next door happen here. Like Trump, Pierre Poilievre has bamboozled a lot of folk into thinking that Canada is broken (it's not), that Justin Trudeau is to blame for inflation (he's not), that immigrants are to blame for the cost of housing (they're not), and that "Axe the Tax" (eliminating the carbon tax) will solve all our problems (it won't).

We have to counteract the conservative propaganda machine because right now too many Canadians are fooled into viewing Poilievre as our political saviour. Nope, like Trump, he ain't. So let the work begin! 

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

what will it take for people to go vegan?

Well, that's the million-dollar question isn't it? And if the answer was an easy one, an awful lot more people would have gone vegan by now.

We also would have avoided the bickering between camps advocating different approaches. Abolitionists, incrementalists, welfarists/new welfarists, reductionists and utilitarians, whatever term you want to use; you can find a group that most closely matches your own philosophy or perspective. Mine, by the way, is one I termed pragmatic abolitionist about five years ago.

One of the many frustrating things for long-term vegans is the amount of time we've spent trying to achieve our goal, but with seemingly little to show for it. As one reader shared when I first starting writing again this year, I am bone-weary of trying to find new ways to say the same thing. It is frankly exhausting. Yes, yes it is. 

Vegans and animal rights activists have been saying the same things over and over and working for a long time in trying to bring about change. Here are a few of the tactics we've tried:

• education
• protests and demonstrations
• undercover investigations
• direct action
• leading by example
• changing laws and legislation
• animal sanctuaries
• introducing new vegan products
• incremental steps like Meatless Mondays 
• appeal to logic and rationality
• appeal to emotion
• media (books, blogs, documentaries, vegan characters in movies and TV, etc.)

Which ones have worked better than others? Hard to say. 

I view education as a cornerstone and vital part of reaching people, but remember reading that Vegan Outreach had distributed something like over a million pamphlets (don't remember the exact number) one year and thinking, but if you multiply that by the number of years you've been doing exactly that, shouldn't there be more vegans by now? How much more information do people need? Apparently, lots. So I don't want to denigrate that particular organization (indeed, I was a financial supporter for a long time) or any other as I realize that educational materials still have their place, but it's only one avenue of outreach.

Leading by example is crucial, I think, as the ripple effect of that can't be underestimated. Set a good example, and that may influence more people than any loud in-your-face exhortations to go vegan.

Two people, who I believe have probably contributed to more people changing their dietary habits than they may ever know, are Steve and Derek of HEEFS. They exemplify kindness in a way I never could, and if ever a couple found their right mission in life it would be them. Opening an animal sanctuary is a purpose they probably couldn't even have dreamt of in their prior lives, but seems like the magical fit that has changed multiple lives for the better.

And animal sanctuaries are a great way for people's minds and hearts to open unreservedly. Because if folk only think in terms of products on their plates without even connecting them to the animals they're derived from, than sanctuaries place those animals directly where they belong: in the center. In the center as individuals with personalities, a desire to live, and a wish to form bonds with others. I would think it'd be very difficult to interact with a cow or a pig or a chicken and then have their cousins for dinner a few hours later. At least, one would hope.

Vegan products? If I think of the range and accessibility in just the past 12 years, well, to say it's exploded is not much of an exaggeration. There was a time when your options for anything vegan was limited to either specialized health stores or huge grocery chains. Now even the most generic stores like Food Basics and No Frills carry a lot of plant-based items as well. That would have been unthinkable 12 years ago. 

But what I love about the ubiquitousness of vegan products is that it normalizes veganism. People may still not always react kindly to the word or idea, but they sure know what it means now. And while it's thought that some of the sales can be attributed to meat-eaters instead of vegans, so what? Isn't that what we actually want? Vegans are already part of the choir so to speak, and in my opinion, who eats vegan items is less important than that fewer animals are consumed.

I'm not going to go through every item on the list as I'm sure it's evident that each approach has its potential merits and downfalls. And because we don't know what will eventually turn a person vegan, having a multitude of ways, entry points, and even reasons will likely help turn more people vegan than just one approach.

Because the one answer that we do know for sure about what'll take for people to go vegan is that we just don't know.

We don't know what will be the societal tipping point. What environmental, economic, or health factor (or something that we haven't even thought of) will be the one thing that changes everything. Possibly in the future we'll be able to look back and say, there, that day, or that event, or that incident is what really got the ball rolling. In the meantime though, I think we just have to go with the approach that makes the most sense to us personally, and that gets us to stick with the mission. I'm also all for groups (like Faunalytics, for example) that can quantify for us what approaches do seem to bring about the best results.

In short, be wary of anyone who feels they have the answers, or worse, THE answer, when it comes to ending animal exploitation.

Note: still haven't read How To Create A Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach by Tobias Leenaert. Wouldn't be surprised though if our perspectives greatly align, but will post before dipping into his book and come back to expand (if need be) after reading. 

whose lives matter continued: part A

This is a follow-up to whose lives matter? as I thought a few links that I included in reply to a comment would be helpful in a post as well. (Note: I rambled on too long, so those links will be included in part B.)

But first I want to say a few things. I've been vegan for a long time now (twelve years), and I'm sure I'm not the vegan I was when I first started this journey, just as I'm no longer exactly the same person in general. And while I believe my core values haven't changed, I wouldn't be surprised that if I looked at my posts beginning from 2008, I could find a few things that would make me cringe today. And that's because nothing is static. You change as you grow, and your viewpoints and philosophies refine themselves as you incorporate new information. That's a good thing, both personally and for whatever cause grabs your heartstrings the most.

So I would say the biggest change is likely the realization that the problem which requires veganism as a fix isn't simple, therefore the solutions won't be either. Platitudes, easy sound bites, and single-pronged solutions aren't the answer; otherwise the world would have become vegan a long time ago already. I'm more comfortable now with realizing that the solutions by necessity will be multi-pronged, have a variety of elements that some would describe as welfarist/new welfarist, abolitionist, intersectional, etc.

It could also be that change will come about quicker because of market forces, consumer innovations, environmental or economic necessity, and I'm okay with that. If more animals end up staying alive because of something like cultured lab-meat, for example, than a massive change in people's moral perspective, well, I'm okay with that too. 

Another thing I've come to realize more fully is that vegans, because they're human, are complicated. Being vegan doesn't automatically make you a better or nicer or more compassionate person. There are likely as many assholes among vegans as there are in the general population, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. Infighting shouldn't come as a huge shock either. No matter how noble a social justice movement may be, it's still comprised of imperfect humans with internalized prejudices.

Most vegans are driven by a sense of compassion, sure (well, one would hope), but that doesn't mean that racism, sexism, ableism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, and on and on and on, hasn't affected the movement. Just as the world grappled at large with the notion that rampant abuse of power leading to sexual harassment and assault is more of a norm than an exception, stories of sexism within the animal rights movement were front and centre at the same time.

Right now the world is also more fully waking up to the reality that racism plays a role in every institution and layer of society (systemic racism), and while some vegans may continue to not want to deal with that, may continue to insist that our movement should only focus on nonhumans, a veganism without intersectionality at its core is like a feminism that doesn't want to include all women in its fight for equality.

And that realization (the importance of intersectionality) has probably been the biggest shift in my own approach to veganism over the years. Because at heart, the ending of oppression is what veganism is all about. Which is why as vegans, we have to fight for the most marginalized of ALL groups, including both animals and humans. Fighting against speciesism is important, but without paying attention to other interlinked forms of oppression, veganism misses the mark.

As I said, I've said too much, snort, so will continue this discussion and links in part B.

Stay tuned.

'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

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. :)

be kind to animals week 2016

Begins today!

What sorts of animals should we be kind to?

• old ones
• young ones
• cute ones
• not-so-cute ones
• sick ones
• healthy ones
• big ones
• small ones
• companion animals
• farmed animals
• land animals
• aquatic animals
• all animals, actually
• including, ahem, human ones

What does being kind not include?

• eating them
• breeding them
• experimenting on them
• turning them into clothes
• stealing their young
• stealing their milk
• withholding care and respect
• confining 
• mutilating 
• killing 
• or using them in any other way for human gain

What are the best ways to be kind?

• rescuing them
• treating them as beings rather than things
• seeing them as kin -- the word kind is very useful for this
• unless already living with you (or in need of help), leaving them alone

So please be kind to animals this week, next week, and every week. Thank you! 

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. 

recipe for yummy kid soup

Just in time for Monday's Thanksgiving (or Columbus Day for those in the States), here's a recipe for yummy kid soup as a lovely side dish. It's quite simple really -- take a big-sized pot, fill with water or stock of some kind, carrots, onions, celery, leeks (or whatever else you have in the fridge), and one small to medium-sized kid. The younger the better, as its flesh will be more tender and tasty. Bring liquid to a boil, insert kid, and simmer for at least two hours to enhance flavour. Serves 4-6.

A couple of notes for those a bit squeamish. Just as when you toss live lobsters into hot water, the thrashing around is nothing more than a reflex response. Please do not anthropomorphize and ascribe pain, as these creatures can't process pain given their lack of a complex nervous system. And as observed hundreds of years ago by the father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596-1650), without thought, reason, speech or soul, animals are little more than organic machines, thus we needn't worry about how they're treated unless it affects other humans.

If you're still concerned, keep in mind that it's just "one bad day", and as long as a kid had a happy enough life for its first 20 weeks or so, then your responsibility is absolved. Plus, in keeping with rising consumer demand, you can now acquire kids that have been raised humanely. That is, they've been given a little bit of sunshine (but not too much as paler flesh tastes better), a little bit of room to move around, and an artificial milk-based formula to fatten these tykes up in record time. Also, organic, antibiotic-free kids are now widely available as well.

And if you're still uneasy, use humane stunning methods to ease your conscience. Better yet, get someone else to do the work for you and obtain a kid de-haired and pre-chopped. Much easier, less messy, more convenient. 

Oh, another tip. Make enough in one batch to have leftovers, because boy is this soup even more delicious the next day. So get cooking, and enjoy! ;)

how do you decide what organizations to give to?

If you're like me, your inbox has been overflowing of late with requests for donations. Understandable, given that this is the traditional time of year for charitable giving. But why ask over and over when I've already heard your plea the first time? Again, understandable that you keep prompting me if I haven't already responded, but perhaps I've planned a certain time to attend to donation requests. I also find it a teensy bit annoying when I've already donated at the beginning or in the middle of the year, or worse, am already donating on a monthly basis. Please, don't ask me again I feel like telling certain organizations, or you may be at risk of putting me off entirely.

Long before I went vegan, I tackled the question of what charities to give to by deciding I wouldn't donate to those that many people donate to already. Standard causes like cancer and heart disease had no difficulty gaining sympathy and dollars I figured, so I chose to support causes a bit more off the beaten path. Organizations like Kids Help (they provide telephone counselling for children and teenagers) appealed to me, as did World Society for the Protection of Animals and International Fund for Animal Welfare.  

At some point, most of my donation dollars went to organizations focusing on helping non-human animals, but I wanted to be a bit more selective. I want my dollar to have the most bang for the buck, and when I found out that certain animal welfare charities paid their executive directors fairly huge salaries and spent an enormous amount on administration and marketing (you can check this by perusing annual financial reports), their names got crossed off my donation list. I want most of my dollars to go directly to saving animals instead of paying for a human's salary.

But the question remains: Which organizations do you support when you have little to give and there are so many asking? These days I like to donate to organizations that are information focused, whether through pamphlets or undercover investigative videos. Anything that can reach more people and fundamentally change more behaviour that has a direct impact on animal lives is a good investment I believe.

Donating more locally is also appealing, so I was thrilled when Mercy for Animals opened a sister office right here in Canada. I'm also getting interested in supporting more novel ways of helping animals, and want to check out creative projects on places like Kickstarter and Crowdfunding. Finally, sponsoring individual beings in sanctuaries and other rescue operations is something I'm aiming for next year.

But because this year is practically over (eek, a few more hours to go, so Happy New Year's everyone!), I'd better scurry along and respond to those desperate pleas in my inbox already. ;)

 

Easter always makes me angry

Other holidays do too, but the more dominant emotion that both Thanksgiving and Christmas evoke for me, for example, is sadness. Sadness at the senseless slaughter of all those sentient beings who would rather stay alive. Who so deserve to stay alive.

Easter, on the other hand, being such an important Christian holiday, stirs up more anger in me not only because animal beings and products are the theme of this equally secular holiday, but because of the Christian justification of animal use. This justification hits even more close to home as all of my siblings and parents are active church members, I currently work in a Christian retirement home, and live in a small town with a seemingly disproportionately large and vocal Christian population.

This isn't to say that I'm anti-Christian per se. Religious upbringing (indoctrination some would say) can be hard to shake, and I believe that being vegan is the Christian thing to do. (In my opinion, you can be vegan without being Christian, but you can't be a true Christian without also being vegan. Otherwise, it would render the term "Christian" empty and meaningless.) It isn't to say that Christianity doesn't have lots of doctrine that supports veganism. Christ himself, I believe, (whether you view him as a once living or mythical figure) was vegan at heart, and would be vegan if he were alive today. And it isn't to say that I don't know of some very fine vegan Christians. 

But the fact of the matter is that most Christians aren't vegan, the Bible does not explicitly endorse veganism enough, and Christian teachings are actively misused to justify animal exploitation. The word dominion, for example, has been bastardized to mean domination instead of stewardship. And if ANY group of people could be thought of as having a mandate to care for all of God's creation (if you happen to believe in any of the various forms of creationism), wouldn't it be Christians? Secular vegans rightly believe that all sentient beings are worthy of respect, that caring for them is the ethical thing to do, the morally right stance if you will. But Christians, one would think, would have an even deeper reason to not use and abuse any living creature if they truly believed that God loves all. Sadly, most Christians do not adhere to this. And in a sense, I believe this makes animal cruelty all the crueler and morally wrong when inflicted by a person who espouses to being Christian.

On a more personal level, it irritates me that my Christian family has no real interest in why I'm vegan. They're all smart, so unfortunately I can't lay the blame on them not being bright enough to grasp vegan principles. And while it's possible (okay, likely) that I'm hugely projecting here, I sometimes get the sense that while they're a bit sad I'm not "saved", they're actually quite pleased with themselves for tolerating my "vegan lifestyle" and for not saying too much about it. Actually, for the most part, not anything. In this way, they can view themselves as liberal without having to examine their own morals and their own role in perpetuating animal violence. Can you tell this bugs me? Because a part of me feels that if they truly thought I was an intelligent and moral person, they would actually listen to what I have to say. Ah, family dynamics. No wonder so many vegan organizations suggest concentrating on strangers rather than family!

Another aspect of Christianity and veganism is that on a certain level I think Christians are even harder to reach than folk who aren't religious. Because while you would think the Golden Rule would hold even more weight with those religiously inclined, Christians in particular seem to feel that their god has given them permission to do whatever the fuck they want with animals use and abuse other animals as they see fit. It's almost as if you have to do an extra layer of work: No, the cruelty and death we inflict on other sentient beings is wrong, no, we don't have the right to do that, AND no, we don't have God's permission to do so.

Where I stand on animal sentience and rights is pretty clear to me. Not so clear is Christianity. Having been immersed since birth (similar to how society immerses us in trying to accept animal use/abuse as normal), I still want to accept the good of this religion while rejecting the bad. I remember as a small kid arguing with my mom that if God was perfect and just then of course Jews and Muslims would be going to heaven as well, in large part because I think kids naturally have a strong and innate sense of justice. By the time I was twelve I vacillated between thinking I'd be a church minister when I got older, or an atheist. Talk about all or nothing, snort. Instead, I've been on the believer-agnostic-atheist circular loop numerous times, and that will likely not change. Which is fine, because ultimately what you DO is more important than what you say or believe. 

I still believe that the Christ figure (whether real or mythical), was a fine dude and a social revolutionary of his time. An early feminist (he believed women could be teachers, and working women, even prostitutes, were not untouchable), animal liberator (that whole Temple thing), and champion of the poor and downtrodden. I often quip that I get along with Jesus just fine, but that it's his dad I have issues with. And would give a real piece of my mind to, if, um, given that chance.

Anyway, thanks for listening to my Easter rant. Please hug a bunny if you can this weekend, or donate to a rescue organization that provides homes to these fellow beings.

A peaceful and blessed Easter to you all! :)

my temptation with eggs

So here's what happened.

Of course I know eggs are cruel. This is why I haven't bought or consumed them for over four years, and am careful to check ingredients to make sure that egg isn't included. But eggs were the last and hardest thing for me to give up (dairy? cheese? meat? no problem!) and the one item I actually missed.

Fast forward four years and I'm at my uncle's place discussing eggs and the awful reality of factory farming while admiring the beautiful chickens that seem to be quite content as we walk among them. They're busy taking dust baths, and conversing with each other and clearly not afraid of this man who seems to be taking good care of them. Lots of space to move around, an enclosure to protect them from the elements (the coop is closed at night for predators), perches galore, water and food. My uncle is quite proud that he treats the birds well, and that he doesn't force them to lay the eggs he takes. Eggs, as he rightly points out, that are usually produced under horrible conditions because people want them cheaply. Eggs that he gives with me because he understands why I protest commercial eggs and how animals are treated and used.

And I have to admit that I take the eggs home. Put them in my fridge and think of how much I have missed soft-boiled eggs (I know, even the thought is revolting to many of you!), and imagine being able to eat one of these brown beauties. They stay in my fridge for a few days, tempting me every time I open the door, and I confess to wanting to eat them. I think about how the chickens don't seem to mind the eggs being taken, about how they're clearly cared for, and about how if I was ever able to rescue chickens and let them live out their natural lives unencumbered that surely they wouldn't mind me taking a few eggs (I wouldn't if I noticed them becoming upset) in exchange for their upkeep, so to speak? I even email a friend as I continue to hem and haw.

But then I remember asking my uncle what eventually happens to these delightful birds, and him admitting that they go into the soup pot. After only about two years. Two! And then I also remember walking into a barn and seeing the cutest little rabbits and for a fleeting moment thinking they were pets before realizing they probably were being raised for meat, and I know what I have to do. The eggs go to my mom's fridge (at age 85 she puts up with my "craziness" but most certainly isn't willing to give up animal products herself) and I let my uncle know thanks, but no thanks. Because what kind of message would I be giving him? And what of my resolution not to be a participant in this animal-dismissing madness?

Still miss eggs though, so what does this former egg-lover do? Gets on her computer and orders herself three packets of Vegg and now happily dips her toast in soft yellow goop without any of the guilt, snort. Plus, even though scrambled eggs were never my thing before, I now absolutely love mixing Vegg with scrambled medium-firm tofu -- yum!

But this whole incident also got me thinking about the pressures and expectations of being vegan, and of ex-vegans as well. What would have happened had I given in to temptation? Would that have undone everything I have tried to do these last four years? Would I have been stripped of my vegan title? And by whom? Is temptation itself enough to render one no longer vegan? Would posting about it have been folly? Is posting about even being tempted foolish? And is it possible that some vegans become ex-vegan because they feel they shouldn't slip up even once? That even one mistake is so bad they'll be crucified by other vegans? (Odd, by the way, given that veganism is supposed to be about compassion.) That if you can't be "perfect" you might as well give up completely and revert to your carnivorous ways? What do you think?

be kind to animals week

Celebrated this year during May 6 - 12, this week (apparently the oldest of its kind in the United States) was first observed in 1915 and was established by Dr. William O. Stillman, leader of the American Humane Association at the time.

Admittedly, my first thought upon seeing this on my calendar was, "what, only one lousy week?", but I suppose that even just officially recognizing the notion of kindness towards other sentient beings can't hurt. But as vegans know, we should extend compassion to all others all the time, and one very simple but powerful way to do that is by not eating them. This one act of kindness alone, if practiced by enough people, could do wonders.

“We know we cannot be kind to animals until we stop exploiting them -- exploiting animals in the name of science, exploiting animals in the name of sport, exploiting animals in the name of fashion, and yes, exploiting animals in the name of food.” ―  César Chávez

words of encouragement

One of the books I'm reading right now is The Longest Struggle by Norm Phelps as I think the adage of "to know where you're going you have to know where you've been" is so true. And because reading about the long history of humans treating other sentient beings badly (which is an understatement if ever there was one) was depressing even if informative, I snuck a peek at the conclusion to see if he would at least be able to end on a cheerier note. Well, encouraging is probably a better adjective, so here are his last two paragraphs:

For more than 2,500 years--since the days of Lord Mahavira, the Buddha, the later Prophets, and Pythagoras--men and women of compassion and goodwill have sustained the struggle for a world in which no sensitive being is imprisoned, enslaved, tortured, or killed simply because it suited humankind to do so. And the end of that struggle is not yet in sight. Today, we still face the same twofold challenge that has existed since the Axial Age: first and foremost, to bring closer the day when all sentient beings will live securely in a world without cruelty; and in the meantime, to relieve as much suffering as we are able.

Our strategy, therefore, must be to accomplish the possible while inspiring those who will come after us to achieve the impossible. We must dream the impossible dream and broadcast that dream so that every year, every decade, every generation, there are more and more of us who share it. All the while, we must never retreat from doing what we can. To abandon either the dream or the work is to abandon the animals, because it is this union of the impossible dream with the possible work that will bring success. Nothing else will. At some time that we cannot yet see, the dream and the work will merge, brought into reality by generations of dedicated dreamers and workers, and the animals will be freed forever from what George Orwell's philospher pig called by its true name: "the tyranny of human beings." p. 310

Amen, brother! If, like me, the negative reaction of those who don't get it yet and the seemingly monumental task ahead of us sometimes discourages you, I think these are good words to keep in mind. Other books if you're interested in exploring vegan and animal rights history while trying to keep your eyes on the better future ahead include: A Vegan History: 1944-2010 by Erik Marcus (Kindle Edition) and For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States by Diane L. Beers.

political parties representing animal rights

As I nervously await the results of Canada's federal election today (if you're Canadian and haven't voted yet please read Shit Harper Did and go vote!), I thought I'd check out political parties that specifically represent animal rights. I actually wasn't aware that there were any until I started seeing Party for the Animals badges on other blogs. They've got tons of information on their website, including what you can do to help. 

In Canada we have the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada (which I hadn't heard of before), Animals Count in the UK, The Animal Protection Party in England, the Animal Welfare Party of Germany, the Animal Justice Party of Australia, Partito Animalista Italiano of Italy, Spain's Party Against Bullfighting, Cruelty and Mistreatment to Animals and the Animal Rights Party USA modeled after the Dutch Party for the Animals mentioned above. Wow! Now admittedly not all parties may be currently active, but it's heartening to see different regions of the world determined to make a political impact in support of animal beings.

And I think the key IS making animal rights a global affair. Apparently a staggering two billion people (2!) watched Kate and William get hitched (in comparison to about 750 million who watched the doomed Diana and Charles ceremony), so can you imagine if approximately one-third of the world's population were to actively get involved with something as important as how we treat each other?

As for the election occurring today, I find the fact that Canada and the US don't have proportional representation bizarre, embarrassing, undemocratic and just plain stupid. I mean, if smaller countries can at least get this right, why can't we? 

Update: So bummed out about Harper's Conservative majority. It's a huge loss for anyone concerned about animals, people, the environment, democracy and social justice. And it makes me discouraged about veganism because if Canadian voters don't even give a crap about the human species, then where does that leave all the others? :(

a disjointed and somewhat longish essay on death

Don't know about you, but I for one will be glad when this month is over. January has been a trying one: my step-dad was taken to hospital on the 2nd, discharged to a hospice a couple of weeks later where he died a few days after, and about half of those in attendance at his private funeral quickly developed and spread a virulent strain of flu. Thus, not a great start to the year. But his death and long-time suffering (he was 94 and had deteriorated a lot both physically and mentally over the last few years) has made me think more about what would make for a "good" death, or perhaps more importantly, a good life. I know this isn't a cheerful post, but I'm hoping that writing out some of my seriously scrambled thoughts will help somehow. Please bear with me.

My step-dad did not have what I would consider a good death; passing away quickly and painlessly while asleep in your own bed. Instead, his death was slow, lingering, and uncomfortable. Despite strong Christian beliefs he was clearly afraid (and hence struggled against death even though having difficulty swallowing and breathing), and I don't believe he was at peace.  It was hard to watch (and certain images of him in my brain I wish I could erase) and it made me sad because I know most people would not let their cat or dog suffer in a similar way. And isn't it odd that while it's considered humane to end your animal companion's life when they are visibly in pain and there's no chance of regaining health, it's murder to end a human's life. Is that because we view animals as personal property to be disposed of when and how we want? And yet, our compassion lets us relieve them of suffering when appropriate, while some people are doomed to struggle to the end.

Conversely, billions of animals are sent to their early, painful, and unnecessary deaths precisely because many do think of them as property. They too struggle to stay alive, but unlike my ailing step-dad, have long and healthy lives in front of them snatched away prematurely. There's no choice for them, and that's a crime. Each sentient being should have some say (barring accidents and natural causes of course) in when and how they would like to live and die, or have as in the case of companion animals, someone who has their (hopefully) best interest at heart.

I also believe that in the name of supposed progress, we try to extend natural human life beyond what is necessary at both ends of the spectrum. Babies now come into the world that wouldn't have survived a hundred years ago, and we do our best to have everyone live a hundred years or more (percentage-wise the biggest growing segment of the population I believe), and for what? Okay, I can understand the what somewhat, but the how I have a real problem with -- in trying to extend the human life span at any cost the human animal feels it's perfectly acceptable to research and experiment on other species without their consent, and even use their body parts if so required. Good grief!

Why should other species have to pay the price for us wanting to live longer? And frankly, I don't. Having watched both my parents grow older and grapple with a host of physical problems in addition to aging-related dementia, I don't want any part of it. Hit me with the proverbial bus if you will, please, but I have no desire to be in my eighties or nineties if I don't have all my faculties intact and can't do the things that are most important to me: think, create, communicate and interact rationally. Now I'm not a young twenty-something who can't even imagine being old, but at 48 am clearly aware of my mortality and have seen aging and death up close. By the way, I'm seriously considering donating my body to medical school when I die to: a) offset the cost of a funeral (do you know how expensive it is to be buried?), and b) offer my body as a research or teaching tool. While b) may be more of a symbolic gesture on my part, there are now veterinary schools where you can donate the remains of your companion animals so that fewer live animals get used in their programs. Good idea?

Another question I find myself asking in the midst of all this death is what constitutes a good life. Because while we don't have a lot of control over our death, we certainly have a bigger say in how we live our life and how we impact the lives of others. If nothing else, this past month has made me even more committed to helping end the unnecessary death of so many. I'm proud to be vegan, and proud to be a part of a growing social justice movement that values ALL species. 

Thank you for reading. Hope to catch up on your blogs and email soon!

treat us kindly

Got this cute little stamp off of Etsy a while back. She has a whole shop full,
but here are some more of StudioMo's animal stamps.