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.
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)
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?”
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.
This is the official blog of the Deep Roots Animal Sanctuary. Here we will talk about animal rights theory and action. The views written in the posts are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Deep Roots Animal Sanctuary. If you are interested in guest posting or being a Deep Roots blogger, email Chris.
Noah
August 1st, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Animal rights activists can now be sent to prison as terrorists for doing nothing but hindering the profits of animal exploitation businesses.
This myth has been widely promoted, but it is not true. The AETA is a penalty enhancement for crimes committed in the name of animal rights. Sure it’s problematic because it’s ideologically motivated, but it is not the case that mere lost profits = terrorism.
The important thing to understand about the SHAC7 case is that they were charged with conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, not with animal enterprise terrorism itself. So what people get upset about is really just old-fashioned conspiracy law, which does not require physical harm (e.g., one can be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder without having murdered someone).
So if SHAC hadn’t engaged in nasty, illegal activities, no one could have gone to jail because the AEPA specifically exempts “any lawful disruption that results from lawful public…reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.” But if people play fast and loose and closely associate themselves with things like harassment, vandalism, and placing people in fear of bodily injury and death, then those “activists” are putting themselves at risk. But I think it’s really important to be clear about the fact that animal advocacy does not equal terrorism under the law.
It is the case, however, that Muslim man = terrorist = indefinite detention without a trial. That is one reason why I think even suggesting that animal activists are–in any way–receiving the brunt of police suppression is just laughable. I think we are making essentially the same point, but I think that if one is going to raise the issue of “police suppression,” it must be done in a broader context, like one in which there is a “war on terror” and a “war on drugs.” A focus only on “activism” (if the question implied that) makes invisible white supremacy.
It is not animal activists who are among the 1 in 100 people in the US who are in prison. There aren’t even 100 animal activists among the 2.3 million people behind bars. We’re talking statistical oblivion here.
Moreover, I don’t see how can this question can even be posed given that the prison industrial complex is the lineal decedent of slavery. Black men are inherently criminalized in this country. The prison population at this point is 40% Black and 20% Hispanic. I just can’t wrap my head around any version of the question why do “animal activists in the USA bear the brunt of police suppression?” It’s a non sequitur.
Chris
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Perhaps I need to further clarify what I was trying to say. I was separating prison populations into two groups: activists and non-activists. I realize that activists are a minuscule portion of the national prison population. But that’s not the point I was addressing. I was saying that if the question was just looking at the activist portion of the prison population in the modern setting, then it may be possible to state that AR activists bear more than our fair share of police repression particularly in the context of imprisonment.
Looking at prison populations, AR activists, as a portion of the activist prison population, are still small. The largest section probably coming from Black liberationists imprisoned in the 70s and 80s. But in recent years, the list of activist prisoners that are entering prison cells (not just being detained) are increasingly animal and earth liberationists. I realize there are several factors going into that and that some activists are simply deported (even if they are now U.S. citizens… this happened to a friend). One of the reasons is that COINTELPRO and other programs proved to be successful in targeting and destroying liberation movements led by people of color through the early 80s. Another is that while human liberation movements were being quelled by cooptation into reform movements, animal and earth liberation movements were springing out of their respective reform movements. Again, there are a lot of reasons for this. To many to get into here (as if I can even understand all the reasons). Besides, I don’t think this is the real issue either of us is trying to get at.
I agree that even hinting that animal rights activists bear the brunt of police repression is laughable. Not even laughable. Sad, really. Sad because it shows how out of touch people are with the reality of the prison industrial complex and the criminalization of communities of color in this country.
On the topic of SHAC and their charges, it is important to note the difference between the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), passed in 1992, and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) - a 2006 enhancement introduced because people didn’t think AEPA went far enough to target AR activists. I don’t want to reinvent the wheel, so I just defer to Will Potter for the AETA analysis.
But focusing on SHAC specifically, you state
The problem with this logic is that they were not charged with any “nasty, illegal activities.” Not even consipiracy to commit such activities. As you later point, they were convicted of consipiracy to violate a charge enhancement, not actually a charge in itself. They were targeted, as you also point out because they “closely associate themselves with things like harassment, vandalism, and placing people in fear of bodily injury and death, then those “activists” are putting themselves at risk.” Even if they associated themselves with people who commit such crimes, so what? We have the freedom to associate with whomever we like. Association with those that break laws does not make one a criminal.
But you are right, all of this is a bit of a non sequitur. And I agree that animal advocacy is not unlawful and that is important for people to remember, but it is being intentionally and increasingly criminalized. The use of terms like eco-terrorist help in that criminalization process. A member of Congress speaking on the floor went so far as to call HSUS a terrorist organization. The fucking Humane Society! If we ignore these blatant attacks by the media, corporations and elected officials, then it will be easier to:
1) forget that most animal advocates work well within our legal rights, and
2) further criminalize already legal activities (association, assembly, etc), thus making it harder to be effective within legal constructs.
I understand that you don’t care to have any discussion about animal activists as targets of repression because the vast majority of targets are not animal activists and the most severe criminalization of communities is within communities of color. I respect that. But as someone who is an animal activists and who has friends in prison as animal activists and has been targeted by police repression, I refuse to give in to the notion that we must focus on certain crimes against communities before we can focus on others. We can work together and recognize the commonality of struggle. In fact, we must if we are to abolish all possibilities of oppression and exploitation (if I may rip-off Lenin).
btw, this:
Brilliant! Thanks for the insight.
9th Carnival of Empty Cages | Deep Roots: Animal Rights Blog
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
[...] Perhaps I need to furtherNoah: Animal rights activists can nowComing Out Critically | Deep Roots: Animal Rights Blog: [...] [...]