RSS
Home
Will Ingrid Newkirk debate Gary L. Francione?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Update
There has been a lot of buzz over this letter especially when VP of PETA, Bruce Friedrich has stated "PETA is always happy to discuss and debate animal rights issues," a response has not been received by myself nor Gary.
In light of this frustration, 53 outraged individuals have already signed a petition or "Twittition" asking Newkirk accept Gary's request to debate.
Text of the petition:
The work of Francione represents an abolitionist approach to animal rights. Both Singer and Newkirk are associated often and mistakenly with 'animal rights' in the public mind and media. We ask either or both them to agree to debate Francione in order to 1) help clarify the differences between their animal welfare position(s), which promotes the regulation of animal use and Francione's abolitionist position, which promotes the rights of animals not to be used as property; 2) confirm that rational ideas do not need a vacuum in order to be persuasive and that the animal advocacy movement is not a religion, but a vibrant community of thought; 3) to help to further a broader public understanding of the moral consideration that we owe nonhuman animals and 4) to help advocates to clarify their own strategic positions and objectives as well as to better align their tactical advocacy in the interest of making meaningful change for nonhuman animals.
Also of interest is a Twittition demanding the Humane Society of the United States start a "Go Vegan" campaign instead of promoting cage-free eggs and various ineffective industry reforms.
Open letter to Ingrid Newkirk
Ingrid Newkirk
As president and co-founder of The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), you've publicized the appeal for going vegetarian and avoiding fur. The campaigns of PETA have drawn attention around the world for their sexual portrayals of scantily clad women and colorful mockeries of food establishments such as PETA's KFC Cruelty campaign.
While your followers who have managed to donate some 30 million dollars annually believe PETA's campaigns bring us one step closer to real justice for animals, there is still a significant percentage of animal advocates who disagree with this conclusion as well as PETA's tactics and fundamental philosophy.
Some PETA supporters have taken to avoiding any debate for the fear of what they call "infighting." Animal advocates are reluctant to give any energy into responding to disagreement in fear of disrupting the supposed unity of a movement for animals. However, I will remind you that debate and criticism is a lucrative means of exploring the truth. Debate is and has been a sound practice in academia and has been used effectively to learn more about a particular cause, theory, or discipline.
Surely, you would agree the focus of the animal rights movement should be primarily on the animals. For that reason, we owe it to the plight of animals to examine and defend carefully what our campaigns do and whether or not they work.
The purpose of this letter is to humbly request your participation in debating Gary L. Francione, Distinguished Professor of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law under my moderation. The invitation has already been accepted by Professor Francione, so the ball is now in your court.
While Francione recognizes the sincerity of your beliefs, the fundamental differences between yours and Francione's approach make for a disagreement of tremendous importance to how rights may be established for animals. Professor Francione's disagreements with PETA's approach and fundamental philosophy are evident in his Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position where he argues:
3. 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.
This appears to stand in disagreement that a campaign that is sexist in nature cannot be considered an animal rights campaign. Francione has also vocalized disagreement with PETA's campaign tactics in the form of billboards and public demonstrations.
In Francione's work, Rain without Thunder, as well as in his other works in which he clairifies the position of the animal rights position, animals as property, and the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, he calls PETA a "New Welfarist" organization. Francione defines a "New Welfarist" position as one which seeks to abolish the property status of animals with welfare reform. Francione therefore disagrees with PETA's awards to slaughterhouse designers and commendation of KFC Canada for using Controlled-Atmosphere Killing.
These are just a few disagreements which have gradually been gaining the attention of animal advocates everywhere. Individuals including myself have been drawn away from our initial allegiance of PETA for a more logical understanding of why animals are brought to our plate, made into coats, or abused in rodeos. In fact, some of us feel betrayed by PETA. After careful examination of abolitionist approach ideology, some feel PETA has given the public inconsistent and often incorrect information regarding vegetarianism as an ethical response and their euthanasia of "rescued" animals followed by death rates as high as 85-90%.
I am hereby offering you this chance to publicly debate Professor Gary Francione to offer your side of this disagreement. As individuals who care deeply for sentient animals, it is of vital importance we approach the problem of animal use and cruelty with sound ideology and practice. If the perceived sexism and violence of PETA campaigns is misunderstood, I and my readers would like to give you the opportunity to speak on behalf of PETA on the issue of campaigning and animal rights ideology. This interview may be done over the phone or by other means over the Internet. I will be patiently awaiting your reply.
Sincerely
Adam Kochanowicz
National Vegan Examiner
.png)
Related Articles:
Comments
