add-memberalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbellblockcalendarcamerachatchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-upcircle-with-crosscomposecrossfacebookflagfolderglobegoogleimagesinstagramkeylocation-pinmedalmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1pagepersonpluspollsImported LayersImported LayersImported LayersshieldstartwitterwinbackClosewinbackCompletewinbackDiscountyahoo

London Vegan Meetup Message Board › This is where I stand...and I think every vegan should stand for it as well.

This is where I stand...and I think every vegan should stand for it as well.

A former member
Post #: 9
the Six Principles of the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights (by which I stand by)

The abolitionist approach to animal rights maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation—because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.
Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
Gary L. Francione



http://www.abolitioni...­ Moral Schizophrenia and Animal Rights Ideology

Ruth x
Lesley D.
Hampton, GB
Post #: 182
Yes and it astonishes me the number of vegans I've met who support CIWF.. don't even get me started on that one! I know Francione is very critical of these welfarist organisations which advocate exploiting and killing animals slightly less cruelly. It would not be accepted if we were talking about human beings so should not when talking about animals either!
Ben C.
user 63241732
London, GB
Post #: 2
Lesley, I'm interested to hear what you don't like about CIWF (genuinely). I've supported them without question since long before becoming vegan. The logic for me is that they're fighting a similar battle to the likes of Viva but with a much softer approach. Whilst ultimately I wish the whole world would become vegan, the realist in me likes the idea that CIWF is taking steps to at least reduce the suffering, in the absence of any likelihood that the suffering will be entirely abolished in our lifetimes. Is that fair? Or is there something about them to which I am blissfully unaware?
A former member
Post #: 10
now that you mention CiWF...they have over 32,000 people following them on facebook, the observer award them with the "ethical awards" 2011... isn't it obscene!!!

but it shows that if someone helps people feeling better with themselves regarding the torture and death they are inflicting on billions of sentient beings, they will support it...
A former member
Post #: 11
welfare has done nothing for the animals, the number of animals being killed and tortured actually has raised...due to the fact that people are feeling good with themselves because they killing the animals "humanely"...

In fact welfare charity business like CIWF are out there helping the business being more profitable and continue with the killing more efficiently...
A former member
Post #: 12
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 60
I usually find that the abolitionist versus welfarist argument is both unhelpful and artificial.

I've never met a vegan who was solely a welfarist. And I've met a lot of vegans! I'm told they exist, but they seem to be pretty rare. Instead, the term seems to be primarily a label used by the likes of Francione to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.

But this kind of "holier than thou" approach only alienates people. And I know of people have abandoned veganism because of such attitudes (and others who have considered it - or who are considering doing so). Therefore, this "vegan policing", that tells them that they aren't vegan enough, definitely increases animal suffering.

However, abolitionist and welfarist are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most vegans I know are both. Ultimately, they want to see the complete abolition of animal exploitation. But they realise that the world (or even just the UK) isn't ready for that. So they support the concept of improving the welfare of exploited animals in the meantime.

It's the balance between the idealist and the realist.

And also between individuals and the world. An individual may be ready to abandon all animal exploitation (i.e. go vegan). So that's what I'll encourage. However, there's no way we're going to persuade the population of the country or the planet to do so in the foreseeable future. So if we can make the lives of exploited animals a little more bearable in the meantime, I think that's a good thing. It's not the ideal thing. But it's probably the best we can manage right now.

It's easy very to claim that such welfarism is increasing the number of animals being exploited. But while there undoubtedly is an increase in animal exploitation, there are many other possible reasons - such as the increased demand for meat in the developing world, where it's seen as a luxury product, part of an aspiration lifestyle. I've yet to see conclusive evidence for a causal link.

Personally, I think we should focus on what we have in common, rather than all these divisions within the movement - abolitionist versus welfarist, secular versus religious... (not to mention other such divisive issues as Unilever, palm oil, and pets).

These divisions only weaken the cause. (In fact, those who would like to undermine us could do worse that creating such a divisive topic!) Instead, we should embrace all those who are seeking to improve the lot of animals - from those enjoying a "Meat free Monday" onwards. We can encourage them to continue their journey, without condemning them for not being far enough along...
A former member
Post #: 13
If someone actually reads Francione books, they will know that he definitely is not alienating anyone or suggesting other doing it.

I have read Francione, as well as others, and I feel that I am in the position to discuss his point, which I agree with based on the argument he presents.

So first I think we should all read Francione, (and others).

He also is not saying anything of "holier than thou"...what he is saying is that lots of people who want to help the animals are doing it the wrong way because they are actually helping those who want to continue to kill the animals etc doing it and making the general public feel better with themselves instead of saying that this is wrong, and this is why it is wrong and abolition is want is needed...etc.

animal welfare exists for more than 200 years...and all that has been done, the so call victories for the animals, is to make the business more profitable...with these complaining the likes of charity business such as Sexist Peta, claim victory, gets more money (their business is multi millions in value), the producer is labeled Kind and ethical, and the consumer feels real good with themselves...the only ones to lose is Animals who continue to be torture and killed...

Francione is from the opinion that people should speak to other in a peaceful way and educate them...he is not the type who goes to through paint at women wearing fur because he understands that being violent towards others is not a mean to anything or to any change...

There is more than enough evidence regarding how welfare is not helping at all the animal cause...people just have to look for it (including vegans)...

If you did not agree with pedophilia, you would that agree to join an organization that said, since we cannot stop pedophilia lets try to improve the lives of abused children by making sure the pedophile treats nicer and instead of raping a child every day lets just say rape the child once a is obvious that it is worse to be raped everyday than being raped once a week? but does this really addresses the child abuse issue? no it does not...

Francione is not saying that we should not do nothing just because most of the charities business are actually working against the animal rights...He is saying we have to approach in a different way because it is not working the mainstream welfare business...

I think making people think and research about animals rights should not weaken anyone, it should inform those who have not yet came across this idea or others...why is it that people resist any thinking?
A former member
Post #: 3
I agree with Robb but I also think there's something else that is worth highlighting.

Veganism correlates with animal rights or animal welfare for many. But not everyone! Some people choose to go vegan because of health reasons. A lot of raw foodists really highlight the health pros of being on a raw diet, that animal protein is harmful and unnecessary for the body. Most of them are conscious of animals but it's not something that they advocate as much. Maybe because in this day and age the way to health, a hot bod and clearer skin is a better way to promote a lifestyle/diet than the notion you'll be helping animals (unfortunately).

Some people go vegan for environmental reasons. Although buying superfoods that are flown from latin american countries and exotic islands is probably not the most environmentally friendly practice, as vegans we leave a lighter carbon footprint than our meat-eating friends. Although I don't always agree with peta's advertising (Really peta? Naked ladies? Don't even get me started...), this is a simple recap of why factory farming is awful for the planet: http://features.peta2...­

I went vegan because I believe in animal rights. Because of health reasons. Because of the environment. I'm a compassionate person and so are many of us on this lifestyle. We don't have the right to judge or dismiss others for not having the exact same opinion as us on the matter. May I just remind you that most of us weren't born in this lifestyle, we were as blind as most of the world is, that milk is our primary source of calcium and meat protein. We are never really taught how much of each nutrient we need because we are told that if our plate comprises of a few veggies, meat and dairy, we are getting all we need. In this aspect, we need to support anyone who is considering this lifestyle, for breaking through the idea that meat and dairy are necessary. That's a huge step already!

My bestfriend and flatmate is a little curly haired greek meat-eater. I love her. She sees me crying after watching slaughterhouse videos. Or videos of the seals being slaughtered yearly by the canadian government. And yet she doesn't watch those videos herself. I sometimes wonder why because I'm sure that if she did she would give up animal products. But she doesn't want to give them up. And a lot of people don't. She knows what I think about factory farming, she knows how I feel about animal rights. And she sees me eat and cook differently. And she's interested. That in intself to me is a step forward. She can see that it is sustainable and possible to be happy on this diet and "reduce" animal suffering, even if just on an individual level. She can't believe how tasty my food is. But I am not going to force her to do anything. Instead, I'll focus on other people who are interested in going vegan, who are vegan.

We need to respect others as we have chosen to respect animals. It's difficult to know how to walk on this fine line and talk to people about animals without crossing it.
A former member
Post #: 14
This idea of "idealist and the realist." is actually something the meat industry and those wanting to continue it use to persuade people to continue supporting things that do not make a change... the idea that veganism is hard and an utopia, that so many welfare supporters claim ,is actually what is weaken or at least putting off people being more interested in veganism...

I understand that a lot of people have families and partners who are not vegan and this is why so many vegans prefer not to discuss the subject so openly so that they don't "hurt the feelings" of their wife, husband, partner whatever...

but if someone strongly believe in veganism, not as an option or a life style or preference but as a moral issue...then it should be easy to talk to others kindly and give them the facts without any aggression...
Powered by mvnForum


GBP5.00 /year (suggested)

This covers: Third party costs incurred by the group (but not's "organiser dues").

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal

Refunds are not offered for this Meetup.

Our Sponsors

  • Vegetarian Guides

    Vegetarian/Vegan Guides to London, Britain, Europe and more

  • Shambhu's

    Need delicious lovingly-produced vegan catering for your special event?

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy