Spanish Animal Rights Activists Go Nude to Protest Canadian Seal Hunt
What is it with animal rights activists and nudity? Spanish liberationists have gone naked to protest a Canadian seal hunt. From the story:
Around 100 people stripped naked and lay on the ground in a central Madrid square on Sunday as part of an international day of protest against Canada's annual seal hunt, due to resume next month. The members of animal rights group Equanimal smeared themselves in red liquid to signify a "massacre" of seals by Canada, where the annual seal hunt is due to resume in April. Some wore red underwear, others were totally nude. "We want to sensitise people to the fact that animals are capable of feeling and suffering like us, and to protest against the massacre of hundreds of thousands of seals which is about to begin in Canada," said spokeswoman Silvia TovalNo. That's a protest that will have zero impact on the Canadian hunt. This is about gaining attention in a sophomoric way. It is nothing but an antic. I think Gary Francione is right when he says such nudity events undermine the seriousness of the movement--which I admit, is fine with me.
Labels: Animal Rights. Nude Protests.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:06 AM
16 Comments
16 Comments:
I think this demotivator someone made sums the whole thing up perfectly
http://is.gd/nBVb
Warning, it is kind of crude. It makes the point well, but ... well consider yourself warned.
Jason: I checked the link. Crude it is, pornographic it isn't. People go to it with ample warning.
I'm a terrible person, it made me laugh.
I went to the Canadian Consulate in Seattle today during my lunch break and I noticed there were a bunch of people there protesting in front of it protesting Canadian seafood. Most people in Seattle probably don't know that they were in front of the Canadian Consulate (I wouldn't have known except for the fact that that was my destination). Most people were probably wondering, "Why are they protesting Canadian seafood in front of Borders Books?" because there is no obvious sign advertising the Canadian Consulate, it's in a huge building on the sixth of 75 levels . . . hahaha.
Anyway, I'm was relieved that none of them were naked. Naked Seattlites is a SCARY sight. Woah.
Although...sometimes I wonder if anti-suicide activists have to get NAKED in front of the headquarters of the MSM in order to get our point across.
Join the club Deborah. I laughed a lot :)
The spokeswoman's comment makes perfect sense to me. I respect Gary Francione's opinion and understand it, and I agree that animal rights activists are trying to get attention, but they're supposed to be trying to get attention. There is another level to the nudity -- vulnerability and defenselessness, and it is the animals' vulnerability and defenselessness to which the activists are trying to draw attention.
The activists can't do anything about the Canadian Consulate not being marked on the outside; that's the only place where they can protest in front of the Canadian Consulate, which knows that they are there, and that's where they need to be to convey their message to Canada via its consulate, which is what they are trying to do, in the time-honored tradition of protesting in front of the Consulate of the country in question.
I remember writing a letter to the prime minister of Canada in French, after four years of high school French, about the baby seals when I was 17; I knew it was not perfectly written, but I did it, and said I was doing it, to underscore the depth of my concern; apparently what I was attempting to convey was comprehensible enough so that I received a long letter back (in English). Concern for the suffering of animals is a passionate concern by nature, just as it was fitting that SHS roundly excoriated Princeton for having given a suggester of infanticide a tenured chair; the word derives from the Latin verb "to suffer." Naturally animal rights protesters demonstrate in ways that reference that theme.
I wouldn't be so sure that protests against Canadian fish won't eventually succeed. Animal rights work makes more headway on some fronts than others; it's a huge fight on a huge front, on an overall issue that has more to do with compassion and choices than "Compassion and Choices" does. I remember seeing, at an animal rights convention in the 1980s (SHS might want to meet some of these people and get to know what they are all about rather than judging them from the outside), a young woman who had a booth dedicated to fighting McDonald's' use of fish. She was absolutely committed and dedicated to, and passionate about, her issue, and was working on it all alone. I remember thinking that she seemed extreme in her dedication, and wondering how she could possibly succeed all alone at what she was trying to do, but by a few years later, she had. Animal rights activists are dedicated, and their objective is to raise consciousness, which they are succeeding in doing; it's not something that can happen overnight, and they are to be commended and respected for their commitment to drawing attention to, and mitigating, the suffering helpless, defenseless, and sentient creatures endure at the hands of the human race.
The animal rights movement comprises a spectrum of individual themes, and individual organizations, all under the same general umbrella, and each individual, and approach, within it has a function. PETA, for example, focuses on raising public consciousness and therefore naturally PETA is public-relations-oriented; some of their "stunts" are deliberately designed to be outre in order to make people think about what they have never thought about before. There are others committed to the issue who do other parts of the animal rights and animal welfare work that are more low-key. There isn't much in it for them other than the satisfaction of supporting a cause that they believe in; these are talented, intelligent, well-educated people who could be making much more money doing something else. In 1985, I was offered a full-time position on PETA's staff, which is how I know that their staff was paid four dollars an hour and lived in shared housing, carefully watching every penny in order to be able to survive while doing the work they believe in. I decided to stay in New York and carry on with my plan to go to law school, where I found, in the first year, every time I mentioned animal rights law, that the idea of it was considered preposterous, and, in the second year, that some professors were beginning to consider and mention the concept; not long after that, courses in animal rights law began to be taught in law schools. I have great respect for those who do animal rights work, in every capacity.
Granted, it's easier to bring a corporation (e.g. McDonald's) to heel than it is a government (e.g. Canada) and an industry (e.g. fishing, seal-hunting).
Any campaign where women are objectified in order to "liberate" animals amazes me. I would like people to "think about things that they may have never though about before" indeed...here's an example: How is it that the objectification of a women (or any body) is justified in these movements in the name of proving a point? And why is there still so much male dominance in the environmental movement and animal rights movement? Has anyone else asked this question? It is a turn off to me and I don't understand how anyone who is for equal rights (read:feminism) of any kind can agree that these types of campaigns are acceptable forms of media from such so called "liberated" movements. PETA disgusts me.
The hunt will continue since it is not a hunt but a needed cull to protect the Marine ecology of Maritime Canada. Similar culls are preformed in the Netherlands where 400 to 500 thousand muskrats are culled every year to protect the dykes of the Netherlands. Net result is the ARA preform no protests there because they have won the law to ban the sale of trapped fur. Thus the animals are culled and garbaged. It isn't the death of animals these people push but the end of economic gain for humanity they want stifled. Meanwhile our grandchildren will be losing a finite resource called oil to the overuse of Petroleum polymers in the synthetic clothing industry rather then use the natural renewable resource of Seal & Muskrat furs.
The man who created the seal cull lie was Brian Davis who pulled a 300,000 dollar a year salary and eventual 2.5 million dollar pension out of seal protests. Not a very likable or honest character at all. Three skull and brain piercing blows to the seals head will render it just as dead as a single blot to the head of a steer ,pig, goat or lamb in a slaughter house. The slaughter house uses one shot to the brain whereas the seal takes three shots in quick succession. Folks need to be more aware of just how misinformed they are by Animal Rights Activists.
As Wayne Pacelle stated to the Washington post when asked how he became CEO of HSUS the largest of the Animal Rights orgs. I think they hired me because I am good at THINKING THINGS UP. I would call that a RED FLAG but I might be a bit wiser about the value of TRUTH then most folk.
Jenni said...
Any campaign where women are objectified in order to "liberate" animals amazes me. I would like people to "think about things that they may have never though about before" indeed...here's an example: How is it that the objectification of a women (or any body) is justified in these movements in the name of proving a point? And why is there still so much male dominance in the environmental movement and animal rights movement? Has anyone else asked this question? It is a turn off to me and I don't understand how anyone who is for equal rights (read:feminism) of any kind can agree that these types of campaigns are acceptable forms of media from such so called "liberated" movements. PETA disgusts me.
March 16, 2009
Then you should be able to understand my complete disgust at the way The ARA present the portraits of the hanging Jew of Hitlers genocidal period as a backdrop to the poultry industry or the black history of the slave trade to having pets and circus or zoo animals?? I support equality of man & woman throughout all aspects of society to the nth degree. I compliment your understanding that using the female body as you describe is wrong but those other two comparatives are so much worse.
Animal rights and feminism aren't the same thing. One doesn't have to be a feminist to be an animal rights advocate, either. I don't see it as objectification of women, and I haven't experienced the animal rights movement as male-dominated, nor has any other woman in it ever expressed, at least to me, that they find that a phenomenon. It's good that men as well as women are involved in it. Ingrid Newkirk started PETA and she's a woman. Plus, the actresses etc. involved in the ad campaigns aren't benefitting from it; they're putting themselves on the line voluntarily and not for the sake of finance or career; in fact, they risk problems in those areas as a result. I remember that one actor spoke out against experimentation on lab animals and had a full-page ad taken out in Variety condemning him. (He backed off and has never been his best self since, which supports the idea that the female entertainers who pose for ads are acting in self-interest by being true to their own selves and integrity, no matter the possible cost.)
(For the sake of clarity and syntax, the actor didn't take out the ad in Variety, someone condemning him did. He also backed off for another reason, but the point is that when one feels strongly about an issue of this nature, and backs down, one is violating one's own integrity. And if those posing for the ads are acting out of integrity, they are not being exploited or objectified.
Why shouldn't people in Spain protest the Canadian seal hunts? Cruelty and humanity are universal issues, animals no know nations, and obviously anyone in Canada who has been protesting it hasn't been able to succeed. Humans, like animals, have universal sensitivity and sensibility.
lanthe said:
Ingrid Newkirk started PETA and she's a woman.
Yes I do know this about PETA. Just because a company is run by /started by / owned by a woman doesn't mean that the individual won't condone objectification or exploitation for the sake of a dollar whether it's for profit or not. There are plenty of women who have the privilege to do this to other women so they can climb the ladder and it does not mean they are pro feminism or pro equal rights.
Donnie Mac Leod said:
Then you should be able to understand my complete disgust at the way The ARA present the portraits of the hanging Jew of Hitlers genocidal period as a backdrop to the poultry industry or the black history of the slave trade to having pets and circus or zoo animals?? I support equality of man & woman throughout all aspects of society to the nth degree. I compliment your understanding that using the female body as you describe is wrong but those other two comparatives are so much worse.
Indeed I do understand and I would argue that it is really vivid and inappropriate to exploit such violent acts in history to prove a point. That being said I also know that the shock value of using such pictures is what draws people in. It's all part of the marketing and the packaging just like anything else and just like PETA with their naked women. I too am for equality of all people including people who are intersex or in transition. To me this is what feminism is about. I realize that the animal rights movement is different from the "feminist" movement but I will say that you replacing one kind of oppression for another is my favorite strategy to promote an idea.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home