Discours pour la Marche pour la Fin du Spécisme

11921757_10205804040794827_6773251576376458707_n

Bonjour à tous et merci d’être venus. Sans chacun d’entre vous cette lutte serait bien plus difficile.

J’aimerais commencer par vous lire un témoignage:

J’ai été séparée de ma famille très jeune. Emprisonnée pendant plusieurs années, je ne sortais jamais à l’air libre et je ne recevais que les soins les plus primaires, juste assez pour rester en vie. Régulièrement, des hommes venaient pour me violer. A la suite de ces viols, je suis tombée enceinte. Quand j’ai accouché, mon enfant m’a été enlevé immédiatement. On nous a séparés malgré nos cris et nos pleurs. Je ne l’ai jamais revu. J’ignore ce qui lui est arrivé. Et les hommes sont revenus me violer.”.

Ce témoignage aurait pu provenir d’une jeune fille kidnappée pour un réseau de prostitution et qui serait tombée enceinte par malheur. Mais il aurait tout à fait pu aussi provenir d’une vache élevée pour son lait, si elle avait les moyens de parler notre langage. L’insémination artificielle est semblable à un viol, la vache est une prisonnière. Dans les deux cas, l’individu a été exploité du fait de son sexe : femelle. De la même manière les poules sont exploitées pour que les humains puissent manger leurs œufs, qui ne sont autre que leurs ovules. Les animaux femelles sont exploités plus longtemps que les mâles en raison de leur capacité reproductrice et de ses conséquences : leurs petits, le lait et les œufs. Les animaux mâles survivent rarement au-delà de l’enfance.

Historiquement, les femmes, les enfants et les animaux domestiques étaient la propriété du mari, du père, de l’homme. En anglais, l’élevage des animaux se dit « animal husbandry » ; « husband » voulait dire « chef de ménage » avant sa signification actuelle de mari. Le chef a le droit d’exploiter les corps de ses animaux ainsi que de sa femme.

Le viol conjugal n’est devenu condamnable que récemment (en Suisse par exemple que depuis 1992) et pas dans tous les pays. D’après l’étude de l’ONU de 2006 ”Le viol conjugal n’est pas une infraction passible de poursuites judiciaires dans au moins 53 États.” En moyenne dans le monde, près d’une femme sur cinq sera victime de viol ou de tentative de viol au cours de son existence. Les grilles dans lesquelles sont placées les vaches lors de l’insémination artificielle sont appelées en anglais « rape racks », « grilles de viol ».

L’élevage des animaux et la domination masculine sur les femmes marchent main dans la main. Les femmes ont historiquement été réduites à la condition biologique de porteuse d’enfant et d’objet sexuel, dont on sectionne souvent métaphoriquement le corps en morceau (seins, fesses, hanches) tout comme on sectionne les corps des animaux que l’on mange en morceaux plus ou moins appétissants. Elle a été interdite pendant si longtemps et encore dans nombreux pays du droit de vote et d’autonomie, on aime à la classer comme étant plus proche de la « nature », tout comme les animaux, et à se servir de cet argument comme instrument d’exclusion et de rabaissement.

Pour insulter un homme, on le traite souvent de… femme, et pour insulter une femme, on lui donne souvent des noms… d’animaux ; femelles, évidement. De même, pour déshumaniser les autres prétendues « races », et par là perpétrer le racisme, on les compare à des animaux.

Le spécisme, comme le sexisme et le racisme, procède de la logique de domination.

Dans La Pornographie de la viande (2004) la féministe Carol Adams, célèbre pour son livre La Politique sexuelle de la viande (1990), démontre comment la société patriarcale sépare le monde en deux catégories.

La première, « A », constituée des hommes, des Blancs, de la culture, de la civilisation, du capital, des êtres humains. La seconde, « non-A », comprend tout le reste, tout ce qui relève du second ordre : les femmes, les non-Blancs, la nature, les corps, les Premières Nations, le travail… et les animaux non humains. Les mécanismes qui permettent d’opprimer et d’exploiter sont similaires, ils sont ceux de la domination, par la loi, la force, la culture.

Une des thèses politiques de Carol Adams, c’est que les luttes contre l’oppression sous ses différentes formes doivent se mener parallèlement.

La philosophe Christiane Bailey nous fait remarquer que plusieurs philosophes, historiens et sociologues soutiennent que l’exploitation, la domination et l’oppression des animaux préparent les conditions matérielles et les conditions idéologiques de l’oppression des membres de groupes humains marginalisés et étrangers. On vendait les esclaves et le bétail dans les mêmes petites annonces. La façon dont on marquait au fer chaud les esclaves est encore utilisée sur les animaux.

Dans son livre Un Éternel Treblinka, Charles Patterson montre comment la chaîne de montage des usines automobiles de Ford, inspirée des abattoirs de Chicago, a fournit le modèle pour les camps de concentration nazis. Patterson soutient également que la domestication des animaux a posé les bases des théories raciales européennes et américaines.

Christiane Bailey remarque qu’il suffit, en effet, de penser au fait que la notion de « races » à l’intérieur d’une espèce nous est venue de la sélection génétique des animaux domestiques.

Il est crucial d’ouvrir les yeux sur toutes les formes d’oppression et d’injustice. Rapprocher le spécisme du sexisme et du racisme n’est en aucun cas une façon de relativiser l’un ou l’autre, au contraire, c’est montrer que toutes les injustices sont liées et permettent aux autres de durer.

La sociologue Carol Glasser remarque que « toutes les formes de discriminations, que ce soit l’homophobie, le racisme, le sexisme, le spécisme, l’âgisme, le validisme et les discriminations basées sur le poids ou le status de citoyenneté sont enracinées dans le même système d’oppression. Ceci ne veut pas dire que les expériences ou les histoires d’oppression sont les mêmes pour différents groupes. En effet, l’oppression n’a jamais le même visage ; c’est pourquoi il est difficile pour les groupes opprimés de reconnaître les façons dont leurs oppressions sont similaires et peuvent en fait se renforcer l’une l’autre. Différents groupes ont différentes histoires et expériences quotidiennes d’oppression. De plus, au sein de chaque groupe, l’oppression et la discrimination est différemment vécue par chaque individu. » Carol Glasser souligne qu’il «  est nécessaire de reconnaître que différents types d’oppression se renforcent mutuellement. » C’est ce que la sociologue féministe noire Patricia Hill Collins appelle la « matrice de la domination ».

Il est temps que nous dénoncions toutes les injustices afin de mieux les combattre toutes. Les animaux sont depuis des siècles à la merci des humains dans le seul but de satisfaire des désirs et une exploitation injustes. Nous avons été conditionnés culturellement à croire que tout ce qui est légal est juste. Nous voyons bien par l’évolution de l’histoire et des droits que c’est faux. Il appartient à chacun de questionner ses croyances, ses habitudes, son comportement et son impact sur le monde. Mais il appartient aussi, surtout, à nous tous de réagir collectivement, publiquement, politiquement à l’injustice. Ouvrons les yeux sur la souffrance de tous, disons enfin « non » au spécisme.

http://www.end-of-speciesism.org/fr/

http://www.asso-pea.ch/fr/campagnes/marche-pour-la-fin-du-specisme/

Advertisements
Published in: on August 23, 2015 at 7:58 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Waking up to spirituality without religion

“The aims of spirituality are not exactly those of science, but neither are they unscientific”.

With Waking Up, Sam Harris achieves something that has been needed for a long time in our modern society: to combine a secular spirituality with the reason of science. Of course, there have been spiritual scientists before, like Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein among others, but they often tended to be mystical in their approach and delivery, which is something Harris succeeded in, if I may, demystifying… Maybe it is due to his dual formation of philosopher and scientist, renewing with the lost tradition of the likes of Descartes and Lucretius, in times where one usually always was both – of course there was less science to grasp then, so the task was easier…

For Harris, it all started with MDMA… Another success of this great book, is how this prominent intellectual speaks openly about drugs and their powerful role in opening people’s minds. “The “war on drugs” has been lost and should never have been waged”.

It is of crucial importance that our society understands that by being spiritual – in a non religious way – they can improve not only their own life but those of other sentient beings, including, of course, the non human animals, and also improve the condition of our environment. It is a subject Sam Harris doesn‘t go too much into details, but, if I may, I would like to add that the logical consequence of spirituality is compassion, and one of the biggest compassionate impact we can have on the world is to boycott animal products, because by doing so we spare countless lives lived in suffering, we save gallons of water and trees, etc, etc, the benefits are too long to list here but worth looking in to.

I really hope this marvelous book helps people enter into a better world, for everybody’s sake.
Published in: on December 28, 2014 at 4:45 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

“Queerphobia and veganphobia”

I began working on spreading the word on vegephobia (read about it here) a year and a half ago and the people I reached to mostly reacted with relief, gratitude and deeper understanding of their situation. Because by learning about vegephobia you can see that you were not alone in being harassed, mocked, teased and put pressure on and you can understand that the real target was not you but the animals killed for consumption and that it all comes from our society being deeply speciesist, thus, instead of blaming the vegephobic people themselves you can understand them and blame society.

But, a small number of people (whom I suspect not to have read and/or understood the brochure) expressed concern about the term vegephobia turning vegetarians into yet another oppressed group and that, instead, we should show how easy and wonderful the world of vegetarian is… That, unfortunately, is exactly a result of vegephobia, because, let’s face it, the world is, still, much easier for carnists…

And, unfortunately, an even smaller number of people were upset that we dare compare vegephobia to homophobia. We did compare the two because the mechanisms of both are very similar and because they both stem from a phallocratic society. But, after my second talk about vegephobia, in Luxembourg, I was very moved to hear the testimony of a vegan homosexual, thanking us for making the connection and telling us that being vegetarian and homosexual, he did feel doubly attacked.

A few weeks ago I read Defiant Daughters (download the ebook here) and I was not really surprised but still amazed that Margaret Perret, one of the writers of that collection of essays, came up in Queering the Dinner Table with the word “veganphobia”, apparently not knowing that the term vegephobia existed since 2001, but, most of all, she compared it to “queerphobia”:

“I have found that comments about my queerness and veganism reflect queerphobia and veganphobia in patriarchal culture, respectively.  Adams presents several theoretical insights into why verbal attacks against LGBTQQIA people and vegans are structurally determined in a similar way in a patriarchal society. Perhaps most striking is the observation that both fail to take seriously the ethical, political, and personal dimensions of a vegan or queer lifestyle. Trivializing and delegitimating, verbal attacks against LGBTQQIA people and veg*ns (meaning both vegans and vegetarians) are attempts to disempower the reformer and uphold Western, patriarchal hierarchies. It is clear that responses to my veganism are not earnest efforts to understand the theoretical and moral basis for my dietary choices, but rather teasing manipulations, as indicated by ludicrous questions about the sentience of plants, the legitimacy of carnivorous animals, or the stringency of my dietary commitments. By diverting the conversation from a serious analysis of food ethics, the speaker avoids a thoughtful reexamination of the contents of her or his dinner plate and reinforces the dominant discourse that excludes veg*n voices. Queerness also threatens patriarchal hierarchies by presenting an alternative to the traditional heterosexual model. As veg*ns struggle to make their meanings understood within a culture fiercely committed to meat-eating, LGBTQQIA people struggle to make their meanings understood within a culture that only accepts the legitimacy of heterosexual relations. What is of moral, personal, political, and existential importance to veg*ns, LGBTQQIA people, and other marginalized people often becomes entertainment for those who wish to discuss, but not seriously engage with what it means to be veg*n, queer, or otherwise marginalized. I found this to be very much true to the process of coming out as a vegan and a queer person. While I have found so much acceptance and love among my friend groups and Bay Area communities, only a few members of my family know that I am vegan, and even fewer know that I am queer. I have largely kept silent about my dietary choices and sexuality because I know that my family ascribes to the Western cultural values that hold queer-vegan perspectives to be illegitimate, illogical, and inferior. When I first told my mom about my sexuality, she advised, “You are just going to have to play up the parts of yourself that you want other people to know about.” Still recovering from the stress of coming out, I just nodded. […] And later, when I told my mom about my veganism, she responded, “I just think you’re being really extreme”.

Published in: on February 17, 2014 at 10:14 pm  Comments (2)  

The first open rescue in Poland!

Bravo to Basta!

Read the story

Published in: on January 28, 2014 at 1:11 pm  Leave a Comment  

Silencing vegetarians

After I became vegetarian I suddenly discovered the wide spectrum of people and political or philosophical movements that prone a vegetarian diet. Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, the Pythagoreans, Plato, a big part of the feminist movement, the Transcendentalists and many more. And I wonder: why have I not heard of those well-known people and movements as being vegetarian before? Why, on the other hand, is Hitler constantly cited as a vegetarian, when, in fact, he was not?

“One way that the dominant culture avoids the radical critique of vegetarianism is by focusing on individuals who seem to disprove the claims of vegetarians. Thus, meat eaters refer to Hitler’s “vegetarianism”. In fact, Hitler was not a vegetarian. But many meat eaters need to believe that Hitler was a vegetarian to comfort themselves with the idea that vegetarianism does not necessarily make you a better person. The message appears to be: “I don’t have to deal with this issue since Hitler was a vegetarian”. But so was Mohandas Gandhi. So was Isaac Bashevis Singer.” – Carol J.Adams in The Sexual Politics of Meat

It seems that when somebody’s vegetarianism could be influential, the general trend is to ignore it or silence it. The fact that Gandhi was vegetarian wouldn’t really surprise anyone, because he comes from a mostly vegetarian culture, a distant culture; moreover, the vegetarianism of this culture is associated with its religion, thus it becomes more of a private matter. But Isaac Bashevis Singer, on the other hand, is a holocaust survivor. Have those meat eaters who are shocked by vegetarians comparing the fate of farmed animals to an eternal Treblinka ever heard of him?

Is Socrates’s vegetarianism ever mentioned in schools? His message is amazingly modern because it is not only ethical but also environmental. In Plato’s Republic he tells Glaucon that meat production is a waste of land because it necessitates large amounts of pasture.

Do people know that Mary Shelley made her Frankenstein‘s creature vegetarian and on purpose? I don’t remember ever reading or hearing anything about it before I became vegetarian. Do they even mention it in movie adaptations?

Wait, do I not remember or is it really silenced? Could I have not remembered it just because it didn’t seem relevant to me? Could I have simply not seen it, just because it was not part of my world?

“I asked a suffrage worker […] if she had ever discussed vegetarianism with her friend, Agnes Ryan. No, she replied, it seemed relatively unimportant to her. I asked a leading feminist historian if she had noticed references to vegetarianism in the letters she had just finished reading of women pacifists of World War I. Frankly, she admitted, she would not have noticed. Ida Husted Harper who edited the last two volumes of the mammoth History of Woman Suffrage omitted any discussion of a confrontation between a vegetarian milliner and an officer of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association over an aigretted hat and a chicken dinner.” – Carol J.Adams in The Sexual Politics of Meat

Do we question what we don’t want to question or only what we want to question? That is the question…

Published in: on January 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm  Leave a Comment  

Vegephobia is Speciesism

“Every Sunday my family was cursing and calling me names”, “My father violently pushed my head into the plate, yelling at me”, “My mom stood up and slapped me in the face”, “My parents refused to see me and their grandchildren during 4 years” – those are just a few of the testimonies collected during the First International Veggie Pride in May 2013 in Geneva, telling how family members reacted when they heard their daughter or son would no longer eat animals. If there are vegetarians/vegans who, at their “coming out” as such, weren’t greeted with either disapproval or aggression from their family, it is because they were either lucky or from vegetarian/vegan parents.

But even those lucky few still have trouble finding balanced vegan food – something more than lettuce and potatoes – at canteens, most restaurants (in some parts of the world almost all restaurants), carnist friends’ parties, hospitals, planes, and so on. And they still remain the target of laughter, offensive comments, exclusion and sometimes even bullying from people outside their family; people who in most cases are friends or co-workers. “I would have invited you for dinner but you’re a vegan, so it’s no fun” (in Veggie Pride vegephobia testimonies).

And then there are the real unlucky ones. Vegetarians/vegans who stopped trusting their doctor because – obviously having received no proper education on the subject – he/she told them they cannot survive without eating meat and/or animal products, and who, in case of an illness, try to treat their children themselves but don’t realize the illness is more serious than they expected and lose their children… There are those who are misdiagnosed because every problem is thought by their doctor to be caused by the meat free diet and die from a completely different illness which the doctor didn’t look for… And, there are those who lose the custody of their child because they are vegans and raise their children as vegans, like the parents of Joachim, the French toddler (http://www.soutien-affaire-joachim.fr/).

For all those reasons, a group of French activists coined the word “vegephobia” during the first Veggie Pride in 2001. “Vege” meaning vegetarian/vegan for the animals (ethical reasons) and “phobia” meaning fear, rejection and all its consequences, as in “homophobia” or “xenophobia”.

Proud not to eat animals

It is important to realize why this word was created precisely during a Veggie Pride: Veggie Prides began in France in 2001 and are annual demonstrations during which people who refuse to eat animals “come out”, speak up about it, show to everyone that they exist and remind society that they have rights. One of its aims is to bring vegans and vegetarians together and to ask every one of them to become a spokesperson of the animals’ cause instead of remaining unnoticed and hidden. The Veggie Pride manifesto states the following:

“We encourage them to express their pride in being veg*an, to join the fight against prejudice against veg*ans and to defend their rights as citizens. In effect, the oppression of non-human animals also implies a violation of the rights of human beings. Amongst these are the following:

– The right to eat correctly in works canteens, in hospitals, in prison and in any other location of communal eating.

– The right to impartial medical advice and information.

– The right to raise our children in accordance with our convictions and without their being marginalized as a result.

– The right to refuse work that goes against our ethical convictions.

– The right to respond in the media to all those who choose to criticize our way of life.”

And adds:

“We are not willing to have our taxes used to support the raising and killing and the fishing for the tastes of others.

We are no longer willing for our actions and our ideas to be systematically silenced. We no longer accept that the only public voices should be those of the corporations and intellectuals who defend the consumption of flesh.

We demand an open debate.”

A political solidarity

The Veggie Pride is therefore a political demonstration. The Italian philosopher Agnese Pignataro wrote that because the Veggie Pride says no to the exploitation, killing and production system, the pride that it expresses is that of disobedience. She adds that the goal of the demonstrators is not to convince particular individuals to become like them but to show their gesture of saying no as a public one, as a contestation of one of the pillars – the most secret and hidden one – of society and that by asking that their rights must be respected they are not – as some may think – egoistically protecting themselves and their community, but, on the contrary, they are extending their solidarity in the biggest possible way. “A solidarity that consists precisely in projecting on the non-human animals, who in the human society are the non-being, the emptiness, the nothingness, the being which is doubly recognized to us, as humans and as citizens. For that reason, among others, the Veggie Pride is an experience that goes beyond compassion. […] Consequently, in the Veggie Pride, the identification with the non-human animals exploited in the food industry experienced by the vegetarians does not represent a simple emotional projection, but the expression of an acknowledgment of a community of a common destiny inside a world of common relations, that of sentient beings: in short, it is a political solidarity.”

The physical denial of animals by the symbolical denial of vegetarians

Why is it so crucial for the organizers of the Veggie Pride demonstrations to ask vegans and vegetarians to be the voices of the non-human animals? Because too many of them have stopped. Unwilling to face the social pressure, the mocking, the teasing, the omnipresent demand for justification, the ostracism, many vegetarians/vegans start citing health or/and environmental reasons (those are respected and accepted by everyone) or even simply a distaste for meat (you cannot argue about tastes) as being the reason why they don’t eat animals. This is when vegephobia achieves its aim: it erases the issue of animal rights from the public debate and makes not eating meat a personal choice. And the animals loose pretty much the only voice they have in our society.

The social pressure for eating meat is so big, that some even stop being vegetarian/vegan because they don’t want to be excluded, because they don’t want to constantly be the target of teasing and mockery and everlasting questioning, which, in most cases, is of no intellectual value (“What would happen to all the pigs and the cows if we stop breeding them for food?! Do you want them to die?”). All vegetarians are not equal in facing such pressure. A new vegetarian, a child, a timid person, isolated in their social group, will not necessarily be capable of dealing with it.

For the same reasons, others refrain from ever becoming vegetarian/vegan. Even such prominent intellectuals as Richard Dawkins, who, in an interview with Peter Singer, admitted that the only reason why he is not vegetarian is because it is not the social norm. Or the French philosopher Elizabeth de Fontenay, who, even though having devoted most of her work to animal rights issues, including her over 1000 pages long essay Le silence des bêtes, says she cannot be vegetarian because, though never forgetting about the killing of animals, she takes the tradition of conviviality too much into consideration.

A patriarchal domination

Why is the social pressure for eating meat so big? There are two main reasons for that: one is that we live in a deeply speciesist society and the other is that society in large doesn’t like anything that stands out from the norm.

By their mere presence, vegetarians question the status quo. Because to not consume meat is a way of questioning human domination and its privileges. For centuries, humans have gotten into the habit of using and exploiting other species for their own ends. Some think the problem goes even further than that. In Toppling Patriarchy with a Fork,Marti Kheel wrote: “A major factor that buttresses meat-eating in the Western world, I have argued, is its intimate ties to masculine self-identity. Meat eating is both an expression of a patriarchal worldview as well as one of its central supports. It is a symbol of dominance over the natural world that has been intimately tied to the domination of women.” She adds: “Animals are kept on “farms,” just as women are kept in “families.” Significantly, the word “family” derives from the Roman word “famulus,” meaning “slave” and refers to a husband’s legal ownership of his wife and children.” In Eating Well, Jacques Derrida introduces the idea of “carnophallogocentrism”. It is, as explained by Matthew Calarco in the preface for Carol J. Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat, “an attempt to name the primary social, linguistic, and material practices that go into becoming and remaining a genuine subject within the West. [Derrida] suggests that, in order to be recognized as a full subject one must be a meat-eater, a man, and an authoritative, speaking self.”.

The link between meat-eating and patriarchal domination is something that is also explained in the first brochure on Vegephobia by its authors Sara Fergé and Yves Bonnardel: “Vegephobia often has sexist overtones: sensitivity and irrational feelings are „female qualities“; a „real man“ is rational and always in control of his emotions, he must eat meat with no qualms.” There are many testimonies of men, who, once they decided to become vegetarian, were automatically suspected of being gay. “Next thing you’re gonna tell me is that you are gay!” is what a friend of mine heard from his father. “Then you are not even a real man!” is what another vegan friend’s father heard from his doctor. The resemblance between vegephobia and homophobia appears clearly.

Challenging the norm

Homophobia stems from a social order based on clear assignation of male and female gender, male domination and heterosexuality. It wants to suppress male and female homosexuality (by ridiculing, hiding, attacking) because it constitutes a threat to dominant gender ideals and patriarchal domination. Similarly, vegephobia stems from a system based on a strict differentiation between animals and humans, on the refusal to consider the interests of animals and on human domination of animals.

“Individuals who defy the mandatory norm of meat-eating encounter similar obstacles to those faced by people who challenge the norm of heterosexuality. Just as a woman is considered incomplete without a man, so, too, vegetarian foods are viewed as incomplete without the addition of flesh. And just as people often wonder how a lesbian can possibly find sexual fulfillment without a man, many people wonder how vegetarians can possibly find dietary fulfillment without meat. People ask vegetarians,“What do you eat?” with the same combination of incomprehension and

bewilderment that they ask lesbians, “What do you do?” In each case, people imagine the person to be deprived or incomplete, lacking a full sexual or dietary identity. A number of vegetarians report that they had more difficulty “coming out” as vegetarians than coming out as gay.” Marti Kheel in Toppling Patriarchy with a Fork.

To see the resemblance between vegephobia and homophobia is not meant in any way as an unhealthy competition that would show who suffers more (as some people seem to think…) but to understand that the roots of the problem come from the same source and to see that the mechanisms are similar.

Fearing vegetarians is fearing slaughterhouses

“Animals are subjected to an incredible violence. From the moment we say and show that we stand in solidarity with them by not eating their bodies it is inevitable that this violence comes out on the way we are treated. Vegephobia is the trace on us of the violence caused to them.” wrote David Olivier in his article Vegephobia is an integral part of animal oppression. He adds “The violence caused to animals is not a simple mechanical process. It is first and foremost based upon a refusal to hear: to hear the scream of the pig who is afraid and doesn’t want to die, to hear the cow who wants to find her calf. Vegephobia is the refusal to hear vegetarians: the refusal of any real debate on the legitimacy of meat consumption. The violence caused to animals is then an imposition: that of dying. To us, vegephobia wants to impose the act of eating them.”

People don’t like to hear vegetarians/vegans talk about why they refuse to eat animals. They fear discussing with them because they would have to face the horrifying fact of being part of a system that causes such tremendous suffering and billions of deaths every year, not to mention the destruction of the environment and the pauperisation of societies in third world countries. Vegetarians/vegans remind them that the world is full of injustice, and if they feel they cannot or do not want to do anything about it, they prefer to laugh at it and do anything they can to make themselves feel better. They might not even realize that when they mock vegetarians/vegans they mock the suffering of animals.

A social issue

To state that vegetarians/vegans for ethical reasons are victims of vegephobia is not meant to turn them into yet another oppressed group. It is meant to bring the issue of speciesism to the public debate. Vegephobia is a hostility against questioning speciesism. Highlighting vegephobia is meant to help its victims handle the attacks better and understand that it is not them who are targeted but the animals killed for consumption. It is also meant to show that those who attack vegetarians/vegans are victims of our speciesist society and only reproduce patterns which they were taught. We should not blame the individuals, but the system. It is very important for everyone to see that vegephobia is not a personal issue, but a social issue related to the fact that vegetarians/vegans are opponents to a system of domination. This system defends itself by creating an ensemble of social rules that have been named „vegephobia“ and that prevent any improvement to the fate of animals because it stops the diffusion of ideas and distorts the debate. That is why it is so important to expose it and fight it because as long as vegephobia will not be considered harmful and will not be taken seriously it is the animals killed for consumption who will not be taken seriously.

Published in: on January 13, 2014 at 6:56 pm  Comments (3)  

Film about foie gras

Here is a new video I edited for my animal rights acitivist group GenevAnimaliste:

and thank you Shannon 🙂

Published in: on December 10, 2013 at 9:08 pm  Leave a Comment  

International Animal Rights Conference

I will be giving a lecture on Vegephobia at this year’s IARC in Luxembourg on September 12.

logo

Check out the IARC website

Published in: on August 25, 2013 at 5:34 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Veggie Pride

It’s funny how you plan things and imagine them in your head and then you live them, almost exactly as you had envisioned them.

I’ve been working with some wonderful activists since last September on bringing the first International Veggie Pride to life, and here it is, almost there.

Sign our petition:

71091_459123667481697_1143717688_n

Visit our website:

320789_195660300581333_2057045789_n

Join us!

Published in: on May 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm  Leave a Comment  

How a girl was force-fed in the heart of Geneva and died

Geneva is one of those cities where you can easily spot people walking in their real murdered and skinned alive animal fur coats and where the French culture has spread so much that even though producing foie gras is illegal in Switzerland, people buy it and eat it as voraciously as in France.

Maybe precisely because it is illegal to force-feed ducks and geese  in their country, three farmers decided they will force-feed a young girl they caught in the streets of Geneva…

One of the farmers roped the girl…

01

She screamed and tried to escape…

02

But the farmer was stronger…

03

And a second farmer began to prepare the food…

04

And the force-feeding began…

05

The girl tried to escape one more time but she couldn’t…

06

They continued to force-feed her…

07

Again…08

and again, helped by a third farmer…

09

It is an incredibly painful procedure…

10

and if the girl struggles when the tube is thrust down her throat, or if her oesophagus contracts with the urge to vomit, she runs the risk of suffocation and fatal perforation of the neck…

11

Insertion of the tube causes lesions which become germ-infested and painfully inflamed.

12

The unbalanced and forced over-feeding causes fatal diseases of the digestive system…

13

Immediately after the force-feeding session the girl suffers from breathlessness and diarrhea…

15

The enlargement of the liver makes it difficult to breathe, and all movement is painful.

16

This results in the liver becoming almost ten times larger than its normal size, and the girl develops an illness, hepatic steatosis…

17

The farmers realized they will not have to slaughter the girl themselves, as she had died from the consequences of the force-feeding…

18

The farmers are happy to be cutting her liver soon…

19

She just couldn’t take it and died, just like one million birds die during the force feeding period in France alone…

20

People stared at the girl and the satisfied farmer…

21

And most of them (if not all) thought: “Maybe I shouldn’t buy foie gras anymore…”

22

“For is this suffering worth my few seconds of enjoying foie gras?”

Here is the video of what happened:

www.stopgavage.com

GenevAnimaliste

Published in: on December 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , ,