Reblog from Free From Harm: “They Are All Cecil”

By Lorelei Plotczyk | August 31, 2015 |

Cecil reveals our glaring moral inconsistencies

Few issues cause more discomfort and hostility than openly questioning the practice of breeding, feeding, watering, and slaughtering tens of billions of sentient animals annually, which we do today in the total absence of necessity.

I want to be liked as much as the next gal, so when posting on my personal social media accounts, I try not to alienate myself from friends and family, the majority of whom love animals — or at least wouldn’t intentionally hurt one — but who have not (yet!) peeled back the layers that normalize the pervasive atrocities of animal agriculture affecting animals, people, and planet. For better or worse, I mostly compartmentalize these issues for discussions with like-minded folks. I’m working on that.

But the public’s justifiably outraged reaction to a lion named Cecil being killed by a hunter who paid $50,000 to do so makes it difficult to remain silent about the glaring moral inconsistencies that recently plastered many Facebook feeds.

Animal Rights BC (Before Cecil)

Here’s the deal. A man paid someone to allow him to kill an animal for pleasure.

Most people, on the other hand, pay people to kill animals for them, also for their pleasure.

Yes, in our society today, we eat animals for pleasure, not necessity. More on that in a minute.

It’s a wonderful thing when people speak up for human rights concerning specific races, genders, or sexualities. Most likely, someone who does so is not then proceeding to intentionally exploit humans outside of the group they’re defending at that particular moment. That would just be ridiculous and incredibly hypocritical. Can you imagine, for example, someone with a rainbow profile picture enthusiastically posting a racist photo?

Yet when most people speak up for the rights of certain animals — often dogs, particularly those left in hot cars — they then turn around and proceed to intentionally exploit animals outside of the group they’re defending at that moment, particularly those species they’ve been hypnotized by society to assign little to no moral consideration. This is equally ridiculous and hypocritical as the above example.

For example, over the past few week, I have seen people expressing their outrage over the intentional killing of a defenseless lion hours later posting a photo of themselves chowing down on the body of an intentionally killed, defenseless cow.

What we call a cheeseburger is actually totally vulnerable, sentient, heartbreakingly docile bovines (usually hundreds of them per patty!) whose ground-up remains are so casually consumed, covered in the congealed mammary secretions of their own species, whose formula-fed offspring likely lived out their unimaginable weeks on this Earth alone and imprisoned in a veal crate.

Amongst my many online vegan acquaintances brave enough to point out this glaring cognitive disconnect on social media, I’m seeing two common, knee-jerk reactions from their typically infuriated and offended non-veg friends:

1. It’s perfectly okay to kill (certain) animals that are plentiful, but not those that are endangered.

This would mean that animals have the right to exist, but not to live.

2. It’s okay to kill (certain) animals as long as their bodies are used in some way, especially for (unnecessary) food.

This is saying it’s not okay to kill or use just any animal for food, just certain species as dictated by society. After all, most Westerners would be horrified if someone slaughtered a local unwanted shelter dog to barbecue, defending it by saying

– See more at: http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-culture/they-are-all-cecil/#sthash.eBMVCwIX.dpuf

“Troubled slaughter: Big Ag fights to keep out prying eyes.” ~By Susie Cagle

There’s a Paul McCartney quote popular with veg-heads: “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.” It may not be quite as simple as all that, but he’s definitely got a point.

For a little over 10 years, groups such as Mercy for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and Compassion Over Killing have conducted undercover investigations into abuses and rules violations on factory farms, and publicized what they’ve documented to lobby for change.

It’s worked: Individual campaigns have resulted in business closures, criminal charges, and even broader changes in social behavior. That has got Big Animal Ag scared.

So it has done what Big Ag does best: crafted legislation and lobbied for it. State farm-protection laws, or “ag-gags,” as The New York Times‘ Mark Bittman lovingly called them, come in many different forms, mixing various combinations of restrictions on undercover filming and activist access to farms and slaughterhouses. Some of the laws give a nod to the value of whistleblowers but require that damning footage be handed over to law enforcement within a day […]

SOURCE

“If you want to be labeled a terrorist these days, all you have to do is show enough concern for animals that you are willing to be a watchdog.” ~ Robert Grillo, Free From Harm

Anxieties Rising in Meat Industry as Animal Activism’s Perceived Threat Looms Large

By Robert Grillo | March 25, 2013 |Free From Harm

The 2013 annual stakeholder’s meeting for the Animal Agriculture Alliance in May is entitled “Activists at the Door: Protecting Animals, Farms, Food & Consumer Confidence.” The expansive animal rights section of the AAA website features a subsection entitled “Agriculture is Outnumbered, Outfunded by Animal Activists.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that the perceived threat of activism to the agricultural industry and its key lobby group, AAA, is factoring heavily into their concerns.

The opening statement to the animal rights section of the AAA website sets the distorted tone with the following absurd misrepresentation of animal activism: “Radical activist organizations are leading the fight to grant animals the same legal rights as humans.” To suggest that the animal movement seeks to grant animals human rights to vote, to gay marriage, to abortion and to equal housing opportunities is no accident. It is a deliberate, underhanded smear tactic that shady politicians use to turn public sentiment against their opponents. The AAA sees their nemesis as a force to be defeated.

Keep reading. It gets even more interesting. Below this statement is a flowchart (AAA calls their “Activist Map”), displaying all of the major animal activism groups and how they  …