Last week I posted the call for submissions for Coming Out for Animals: Queering Animal Liberation. Before even posting that call, it had already generated some discussion here at Deep Roots.Let me start by saying that I am Queer. And I love the idea of an anthology that looks at the connections of any liberation struggles. But the wording of the call does pose some questions.

A Problem with Words

Dani, at The Vegan Ideal, has already stated outrage over the notion that animal rights activists are the most targeted segment of the U.S. population. Or as the call asks:

Why do queer activists in Uganda but animal activists in the USA bear the brunt of police suppression in their respective countries? Are they similarly subversive of “cultural” practices that turn out to be critical to the maintenance of state power?

I whole-heartedly agree with Dani’s outrage. I’ve had the privilege of reading Pattrice’s writing before and my guess is that this is perhaps a misunderstanding in context. Perhaps it was meant the as far as activist groups go, animal rights activists “bear the brunt” in the U.S., whereas Queer activists are the most targeted in Uganda. If that is the intended statement, I may be more inclined to agree or at least less inclined to outrage.

There is perhaps a problem with comparison in this example. Animal rights activists in the U.S. are targeted for our activities and successes against large corporations. Queer activists in Uganda are not targeted because they are activists, or not solely because they are activists. They are targeted for being Queer, thus the situation requires the transition into activism.

What makes the claim of animal rights activists being the most targeted somewhat legitimate? The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is the first thing that comes to mind. Animal rights activists can now be sent to prison as terrorists for doing nothing but hindering the profits of animal exploitation businesses. That is what happened with the SHAC 7. They were not charged with any physical crime or even the conspiracy to commit a physical crime. Instead, they were targeted as terrorists because they ran a website that helped other activists effectively shut down the largest animal testing company. They are now serving federal prison sentences. But immigrants who participate in immigrant rights work (or any activist work for that matter) can be detained for an indefinite amount of time and deported without having committed any crime other than crossing an imaginary border to provide for themselves and their family.

It is also known that FBI agents commonly try to infiltrate animal rights groups (and vegan potlucks). However, it is also known that they are doing that with peace and environmental groups. I would also be surprised if they were not at least attempting to infiltrate immigrant rights groups. So to that extent, animal rights groups are, indeed, targeted. But perhaps not as disproportionately so as we would like to believe. After all, I believe the six SHAC activists are the only ones that have been imprisoned who didn’t actually commit any crimes (even if the other crimes were non-violent, they are still generally accepted as punishable crimes). And environmental activists such as Jeffrey Luers, who did commit the crime of burning SUVs, are serving far more disproportionate sentences (23 years for Luers).

So far, I’ve been arrested or detained for anti-war activities, anti-sweatshop activities, and counter-globalization activities, but not yet animal rights work. Not that one person’s experience can serve as the standard for an entire population, but that is my experience so far. The argument could be made that I haven’t been effective enough yet in my animal rights activism:)

Dani also makes a great point about something that I have been hoping to address here on this blog for several months now:

this call for papers ignore how activists are manufacturing increased police suppression that targets oppressed groups by actively promoting stiffer sentencing for anti-cruelty laws, and specifically criminalizing “animal cruelty” identified with poor people and people of color (i.e., dog fighting and cock fighting)

Sexualizing Things That Are Not Sexual

All of the above discussion was not, however, a part of the original dialogue sparked here at Deep Roots. The original concern, brought up by Jerico, was “are we continuing the trend of sexualizing something that isn’t sexual?” There is context to this question that I will get to in a moment, but let me first point out that this line of discussion was perhaps sparked by another problem with wording.

The subtitle of the book, Queering Animal Liberation, is kind of problematic. As Jerico pointed out, this title chose the language of “animal liberation” as opposed to animal rights or animal welfare. As longtime animal liberation activists, Jerico and I both agree that this is one of the Queerest and most Queer-friendly movements we have been a part of. Hell, there was an uprising at the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference because the keynote speaker is an outspoken homophobe. All of this is not to say that there isn’t work to be done within the animal lib movement.

Another question was why do we need to “Queer” animal liberation? Shouldn’t animal liberation as a concept be strong enough that it doesn’t need to be attached to some other liberation struggle in order to be justified? I hope the book will be used as a tool to show how liberation struggles are connected, but that in those connections they stand up in their own right as liberation struggles that must be taken seriously by those concerned with compassion and justice.

Jerico also pointed out that perhaps it could be called “The Queering of Animal Liberation.” This is where I’ll get into the context I mentioned above. Over the past year or two, we have seen a rapid increase in the attempt to connect veganism and animal lib work to some sort of deprived sexuality. The New York Times went so far as to claim a new breed of sexuality: vegansexuality. The idea that vegans will only sleep with other vegans because everyone else disgusts us. While vegans may be more apt to sleep with other vegans, you could say the same thing of liberals sleeping with liberals, conservatives with conservatives, Christians with Christians, Muslims with Muslims, Jews with Jews, you get the point. The reason is not that all of these people have some sort of sexually deprived minds, but that we like to be intimate with people who have common interests and ethics.

But it didn’t start or stop with vegansexuality. For a long time, it has been tried to attach animal liberationists to bestiality. Even Mother Jones sorta played into this notion by introducing the term “petophilia,” which I guess is supposed to refer to people who seem to care more about their non-human companions than the humans around them.

There were a series of articles recently published that tried to prove that herbivorous diets, especially those containing soy, will turn your children into Queers. And still to this day, there are very enlightened people who shout “fag” or “dyke” as they pass a crowd of animal lib activists. Obviously I don’t take these to be the insults they are meant to be, but it begs the question, “why is animal liberation and veganism seen as an activity for Queer people?”

The Remaining Straight-Edge Vegans

One last thing that was brought up that I repeat solely because I think it is funny, is Jerico’s response the the question, “What are we going to do about homophobia among straight-edge vegans?” His response: “Um, I don’t know. Go back to the 90s when it was still a problem?”

Mind you, we are both substance-free. We have both been around long enough to watch the rise and fall of the straight-edge scene. While there are still a lot of straight-edge people, the scene (if it is still a scene) is a lot different. In fact, the strongest proponent of straight-edge life that I know is Queer. Straight-edge seems to no longer be entrenched in the hardcore dudeliness that it once was.

None of this is to say that I think the book is a bad idea. I don’t. I am really interested in this discussion and hope that it succeeds. I merely hope that the critiques will encourage people to write thoughtful essays that truly challenge movements to become the liberation struggles we purport them to be. I think this is what the editors want to get out of this project as well and it is going to take all of us to accomplish that.