RSS
Home
HSUS wants you to keep them busy
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
HSLF's "There oughta be a law" homepage
(UPDATE: Sign this Twittition to tell HSUS to stop promoting the use of cage-free eggs)
The Humane Society may not be an Animal Rights organization--they'll openly reject the label. However, at the same time, the HSUS claims they are the "largest and most effective animal protection agency." The organization does not explain what these terms mean, so I'll assume "largest" means having the largest revenue.
Throwing laws at the issue
If the HSUS is the "most effective" animal protection agency, we should wonder why they support and run a number of campaigns which are clearly contrary to the interests of animals. See the Certified Humane campaign and other "triumphs" as an example.
Animals do not suffer because there is a small group of empowered, evil people acting contrary to the common ethics of society. Animals endure exploitation in forms like confinement, physical and psychological torture, and death because these conditions are necessary to meet our demand. Animals are not right-holders but property.
Removing cruelty
From the HSLF website, asking the public to tell IHOP
how they can continue to receive their business from
the exploitation of animals.
Despite the claims of some HSUS representatives that
these campaigns step toward abolitionism, notice the
ad tells the visitor to witness the cruelty and follows by
making the conclusion such a practice should be
reformed, not abolished.
Yet the popular belief in "animal protection" is that we must simply sniff out the "cruelty" in animal use. Veganism to welfarists is not a logical starting point to respecting animals but a mere tool for reducing suffering. This means veganism is regarded as equally important as continuing to consume animals raised in battery barns instead of battery cages or those allowed to stand on grass before being killed.
So let's be clear about animal welfarism. Welfarists want to protect animals, but not if any act of protection interferes with our interests in using them as property.
Passing laws which supposedly protect animals usually endorse techniques put in place to improve the efficiency of animal production. Such laws are further endorsed as "victories," sending the message to the public that the "largest, most effective animal protection organization" certifies slaughtered, tortured animals as "humane."
"There oughta be a law"
Despite this failure, welfare organizations can garner a great deal of donations by frequently supporting such legal campaigns, ensuring donors they are working hard to bring justice to animals. All the while, as writer for the My Face is on Fire blog Mylène Ouellette informs me, the HSLF is happy to host campaigns which actually serve animal products to the public* while they endorse animal protection.
The epitome of this tactic has arrived recently in the form of the Human Society Legal Fund's "There oughta be a law" campaign. This campaign is a contest where supporters can suggest their best ideas for legislation that will protect animals.
The entries will be judged by two politicians and the HSLF president. The winner will be featured in "Humane Activist" magazine and given a couple free trips to discuss his or her proposal.
How is this point-and-shoot legislation campaign really supposed to bring us any progress for animal rights, er...protection? Are we to sit back while humans freely exploit animals and simply work to create a law whenever we find a instance of cruel treatment which can be avoided in the process of using the animal for its products or labor? Are we going to simply ignore the effect of endorsement of "reformed" animal treatment by "large" animal protection agencies?
Inactivism and infantilism
Twitter .png){kind=small}
Facebook
Related Articles:
Comments
