July 17, 2007

Vegans on the Hot Seat: Rae Sikora and Gary Francione Respond

Fire photo: Ernest von Rosen, www.amgmedia.com
Rae Sikora photo from simplyenough.com
Gary Francione photo from emagazine.com

Should insects have rights? What about plants? Don't they feel pain, too? Isn't meat-eating natural? What about religious texts that justify using and eating animals? Isn't veganism classist, racist, Euro-centric, and culturally-insensitive? Why bother advocating for animals when there's so much human suffering? Why be vegan when humanely-produced meat and dairy is now available?

If you've ever been confronted with concerns like these, or wonder about them yourself, tune in to hear responses from two respected vegans and movement leaders. Structured around a set of commonly-asked questions about veganism and animal rights, tomorrow's show features Rae Sikora and Gary Francione, who will answer the same questions, each informed by decades of experience and their own unique perspective.

For those of us who have ever been stumped, baffled, and otherwise left with a loss for words, this episode of Animal Voices should offer some excellent ideas for how to approach the issues.

More on Francione and Sikora...

Rae Sikora has been a spokesperson for animals, the environment and human rights for over 25 years. She is the co-founder of the Center for Compassionate Living and the Institute for Humane Education. She is also the founder of Simply Enough, an organization that promotes peace, critical thinking, and creativity. "The time has come to recognize that we are enough and we have enough regardless of the messages that advertising and popular culture have infused into our lifestyles" (www.simplyenough.com). Sikora holds degrees in Cultural Anthropology and Environmental Education from University of Wisconsin.

Gary Francione is a Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University. Professor Francione started teaching animal rights and the law in his course on legal philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985. He began teaching it as a separate course when he moved to Rutgers in 1989, and combined the course with a litigation clinic (the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic) in which students worked on actual animal cases while learning theory in the classroom. He has written four books, and numerous articles on animals and the law, including Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (2000), and Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection (with Anna Charlton) (1992). Francione's new book, Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation is coming out with Columbia University this fall. More info about Francione can be found at his website The Abolitionist Approach.

Download mp3s of the interview:
lower quality / smaller: part 1 (2.61 MB) and part 2 (3.3 MB)
higher quality / larger: part 1 (5.27 MB) and part 2 (6.63 MB)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2007-07-18 14:21.

Follow-up shows, please?

Will you be doing some follow-up shows to cover some of the other questions please? :-) I think we really need a few to go over all the material.

Submitted by Lauren (not verified) on Thu, 2007-07-19 14:34.

I've asked Rae and Gary to be back on the program in late August, to do a Part II. We'll keep you posted! They both sounded interested in being on the show again, so hopefully it will work out.

Thanks for listening. :)

Submitted by Chris from Poland (not verified) on Sun, 2007-09-09 03:34.

Hi there! First of all, as this is my first comment here, I'd like to congratulate all of you on the great show. I download it most every week and enjoy it very much. Having said that, I have a question, you see, I'd really be interested to know Rae's response to Gary's answer to the 'plants question'. I seem to subscribe to the same paradigm, as Gary put it, as she does, one that I would call 'the wisdom of I DON'T KNOW' and of living lightly and causing minimum harm to anyone or anything. I've found some flaws in Gary's answer and was wondering if there was a way of getting to know just what Rae has to say about that.

all the best guys! Chris

Submitted by Wendy (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-18 11:40.

I've just started listening to the archived show and think I'll be enjoying it. If you get a chance to talk to Mr. Francione, or if he decides to come back for another interview, I have a question I'm really wanting an answer to.

I went to his site several weeks ago because I was having some confusion around the abolition vs. welfare issue. I'm an abolitionist with some welfarist tendencies, I guess. I understand Mr. Francione's argument when he uses the example of a woman being raped - just because she doesn't get beaten doesn't make a rape excusable or justifiable, just as giving battery hens an extra inch or two doesn't make their plight any less severe or justifiable. However, with some few exceptions, women don't live their lives getting constantly raped (again, there are exceptions to this, unfortunately), while the battery hens (and other animals) live their miserable existences just waiting to die. So isn't it better to give them some space? Looking at it from an animal by animal basis, this would be preferable to nothing. Looking at it from a wider perspective, toward the future of animals and the AR movement, I can see how this can become very detrimental. I don't think, personally, that getting McDonald's to carry a veggie burger or require their suppliers to give hens or pigs an extra inch of space constitutes much of a victory. It's a step, but not a victory, and I understand the fear that a step can lead down or up and that, as these minimal steps are taken the public perception becomes "oh, the animals aren't treated too badly it's okay to eat them (or experiment on them, etc)."
Certainly the basis of a corporation like McDonald's is to make money, and if the money's in meat they're not going to stop.

So - here's the real point of this extra-long comment - if the corporation exists to make profit and a corporation is involved in something sinister, isn't the best way to force the corporation to change to stop supporting it, ie, not supplying it with profit? I think so. I also think the boycotts in the AR movement lately have been rather ineffective because I feel many activists don't take them seriously. This is why I was very bothered to see that Mr. Francione's liberation site links his books not only to the university presses where they can be bought, but to amazon.com. I've had this argument from The Animals' Voice magazine, that people can find a lot of good books at amazon.com, books vital to the movement and animals' rights. Yet what I see is a corporation selling foie gras from one of the worst producers in North America AND selling cockfighting magazines and books. This doesn't make sense to me. A quote I've seen on a blog states "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's rape rack." Promoting a corporation that is so blatantly against animals and animal rights in the name of animal rights doesn't make sense to me. We can't support cruelty in the name of erasing it.

When I asked Mr. Francione why I could buy his books through amazon.com, I didn't get a reply. So now I'm asking again because if there is a sane reason for this I'd like to know it. It feels like every AR victory is so hard-won. I don't know why we have to make it more difficult, especially in this day and age when the rights and power of the corporation pretty much trumps that of anything or anyone else.

Thanks so much!